Economic Evaluation of Fidaxomicin for the Treatment of Clostridium Difficile Infection (C. difficile-associated diarrhoea) in Ireland

A cost-utility analysis of two Clostridioides difficile infection guideline treatment pathways

OBJECTIVES

Treatment guidelines are key drivers of prescribing practice in the management of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), but recommendations on best practice can vary. We conducted a cost-utility analysis to compare the treatment pathway recommended by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guideline with the pathway proposed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

METHODS

A decision tree modelling approach was adopted to reflect the treatment pathway for CDI as outlined in ESCMID and NICE guidelines. Patients experiencing a CDI infection received up to three treatments per infection to achieve a response and could subsequently experience up to two recurrences. Data on patient demographics, treatment response, recurrence, utilities, CDI-related mortality, and costs were taken from published literature.

RESULTS

The ESCMID treatment pathway was cost-effective versus the NICE treatment pathway at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £4931. Cost-effectiveness was driven by differences in index infection recommendations (ESCMID recommends fidaxomicin as first-line treatment whereas NICE recommends vancomycin). The model results were robust to variations in inputs investigated in scenarios and sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ESCMID guideline treatment strategy had a 100% likelihood of being cost-effective versus the NICE treatment strategy.

DISCUSSION

Compared with the NICE guideline, the ESCMID guideline recommendations for treating an index CDI represent the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

A Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations of Antibiotic Treatments for Clostridium difficile Infection

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is associated with high management costs, particularly in recurrent cases. Fidaxomicin treatment results in lower recurrence rates than vancomycin and metronidazole, but has higher acquisition costs in Europe and the USA. This systematic literature review summarises economic evaluations (EEs) of fidaxomicin, vancomycin and metronidazole for treatment of CDI.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library) and conference proceedings (ISPOR, ECCMID, ICAAC and IDWeek) were searched for publications reporting EEs of fidaxomicin, vancomycin and/or metronidazole in the treatment of CDI. Reference bibliographies of identified manuscripts were also reviewed. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated according to the overall population of patients with CDI, as well as in subgroups with severe CDI or recurrent CDI, or those at higher risk of recurrence or mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 27 relevant EEs, conducted from the perspective of 12 different countries, were identified. Fidaxomicin was cost-effective versus vancomycin and/or metronidazole in 14 of 24 EEs (58.3%), vancomycin was cost-effective versus fidaxomicin and/or metronidazole in five of 27 EEs (18.5%) and metronidazole was cost-effective versus fidaxomicin and/or vancomycin in two of 13 EEs (15.4%). Fidaxomicin was cost-effective versus vancomycin in most of the EEs evaluating specific patient subgroups. Key cost-effectiveness drivers were cure rate, recurrence rate, time horizon, drug costs and length and cost of hospitalisation.

CONCLUSIONS

In most EEs, fidaxomicin was demonstrated to be cost-effective versus metronidazole and vancomycin in patients with CDI. These results have relevance to clinical practice, given the high budgetary impact of managing CDI and increasing restrictions on healthcare budgets.

OTHER

This analysis was initiated and funded by Astellas Pharma Inc.

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of first-line fidaxomicin for patients with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in Germany

PURPOSE

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) represents a significant economic healthcare burden, especially the cost of recurrent disease. Fidaxomicin produced significantly lower recurrence rates and higher sustained cure rates in clinical trials. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin in Germany in the first-line treatment of patient subgroups with CDI at increased risk of recurrence.

METHODS

A semi-Markov model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of fidaxomicin vs. vancomycin from a payer perspective in Germany. The model cycle length was 10 days. The time horizon was 1 year. Model inputs were probability of clinical cure, 30-day probability of recurrence, and 30-day attributable mortality based on evidence from two randomized controlled trials comparing fidaxomicin and vancomycin in patients with CDI. Cost-effectiveness outcomes were cost per quality-adjusted life year gained, cost per bed-day saved, and cost per recurrence avoided.

RESULTS

Despite higher drug acquisition costs, fidaxomicin was dominant in the cancer subgroup (less costly and more effective) and cost-effective in the other subgroups, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios vs. vancomycin ranging from €26,900 to €44,500. Hospitalization costs of the first-line treatment of CDI with fidaxomicin vs. vancomycin were lower in every patient subgroup, resulting in budget impacts ranging from -€1325 (in patients ≥65 years) to -€2438 (in cancer patients). Reductions in the cost of treating recurrence with fidaxomicin ranged from -€574.32 per patient in those receiving concomitant antibiotics to -€1500.68 per patient in renally impaired patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patient subgroups with CDI at increased recurrence risk, fidaxomicin was cost-effective vs. vancomycin, and less costly and more effective in patients with cancer.