Yiling Jiang1, Eric M Sarpong2, Pamela Sears2, Engels N Obi2. 1. Merck Sharp & Dohme (UK) Ltd., 120 Moorgate, London, EC2Y 9AL, UK. yiling.jiang1@msd.com. 2. Merck & Co., Inc., 200 Galloping Hill Road, Kenilworth, NJ, 07033, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Fidaxomicin is as effective as vancomycin in treating Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) but more effective at preventing recurrence. However, because fidaxomicin is more costly than vancomycin, its overall value in managing CDI is not well understood. This study assessed the budget impact of introducing fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for the treatment of adults with CDI from a hospital perspective in the US. METHODS: A cohort-based decision analytic model was developed over a 1-year horizon. A hospital with 10,000 annual hospitalizations was simulated. The model considered two adult populations: patients with no prior CDI episode and patients with one prior CDI episode. Two scenarios were assessed per population: 15% fidaxomicin/85% vancomycin use and 100% vancomycin use. Model inputs were obtained from published sources and expert opinion. Model outcomes included cost, payment, and revenue at the hospital level, per treated CDI patient, and per admitted patient. Budget impact was calculated as the difference in revenue between scenarios. One-way sensitivity analyses tested the effects of varying model inputs on the budget impact. RESULTS: In patients with no prior CDI episode, treatment with fidaxomicin resulted in potential savings over 1 year of $1105 at the hospital level, $14 per treated CDI patient, and $0.11 per admitted patient. In patients with one prior CDI episode, fidaxomicin use was associated with potential savings over 1 year of $1150 at the hospital level, $74 per treated CDI patient, and $0.12 per admitted patient. Savings were driven by a reduced rate of CDI recurrence with fidaxomicin treatment and uptake of fidaxomicin. Sensitivity analyses indicated savings when inputs were varied in most scenarios. CONCLUSION: Budgetary savings can be achieved with fidaxomicin due to reduced CDI recurrence as a result of a superior sustained clinical response. Our results support considering the broader benefits of fidaxomicin, beyond its cost, when making formulary inclusion decisions.
INTRODUCTION: Fidaxomicin is as effective as vancomycin in treating Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) but more effective at preventing recurrence. However, because fidaxomicin is more costly than vancomycin, its overall value in managing CDI is not well understood. This study assessed the budget impact of introducing fidaxomicin versus vancomycin for the treatment of adults with CDI from a hospital perspective in the US. METHODS: A cohort-based decision analytic model was developed over a 1-year horizon. A hospital with 10,000 annual hospitalizations was simulated. The model considered two adult populations: patients with no prior CDI episode and patients with one prior CDI episode. Two scenarios were assessed per population: 15% fidaxomicin/85% vancomycin use and 100% vancomycin use. Model inputs were obtained from published sources and expert opinion. Model outcomes included cost, payment, and revenue at the hospital level, per treated CDI patient, and per admitted patient. Budget impact was calculated as the difference in revenue between scenarios. One-way sensitivity analyses tested the effects of varying model inputs on the budget impact. RESULTS: In patients with no prior CDI episode, treatment with fidaxomicin resulted in potential savings over 1 year of $1105 at the hospital level, $14 per treated CDI patient, and $0.11 per admitted patient. In patients with one prior CDI episode, fidaxomicin use was associated with potential savings over 1 year of $1150 at the hospital level, $74 per treated CDI patient, and $0.12 per admitted patient. Savings were driven by a reduced rate of CDI recurrence with fidaxomicin treatment and uptake of fidaxomicin. Sensitivity analyses indicated savings when inputs were varied in most scenarios. CONCLUSION: Budgetary savings can be achieved with fidaxomicin due to reduced CDI recurrence as a result of a superior sustained clinical response. Our results support considering the broader benefits of fidaxomicin, beyond its cost, when making formulary inclusion decisions.