Budget Impact Analysis of Dalbavancin in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections in Three European Countries

Cost evaluation of continuation of therapy with dalbavancin compared to standard-of-care antibiotics alone in hospitalized persons who inject drugs with severe gram-positive infections

PURPOSE

Persons who inject drugs (PWID) are at risk for severe gram-positive infections and may require prolonged hospitalization and intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. Dalbavancin (DBV) is a long-acting lipoglycopeptide that may reduce costs and provide effective treatment in this population.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of PWID with severe gram-positive infections. Patients admitted from January 1, 2017, to November 1, 2019 (standard-of-care [SOC] group) and from November 15, 2019, to March 31, 2022 (DBV group) were included. The primary outcome was the total cost to the healthcare system. Secondary outcomes included hospital days saved and treatment failure.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients were included (37 in the DBV group and 50 in the SOC group). Patients were a median of 34 years old and were predominantly Caucasian (82%). Staphylococcus aureus (82%) was the most common organism, and bacteremia (71%) was the most common type of infection. Compared to the SOC group, the DBV group would have had a median of 14 additional days of hospitalization if they had stayed to complete their therapy (P = 0.014). The median total cost to the healthcare system was significantly lower in the DBV group than in the SOC group ($31,698.00 vs $45,093.50; P = 0.035). The rate of treatment failure was similar between the groups (32.4% in the DBV group vs 36% in the SOC group; P = 0.729).

CONCLUSION

DBV is a cost-saving alternative to SOC IV antibiotics for severe gram-positive infections in PWID, with similar treatment outcomes. Larger prospective studies, including other patient populations, may demonstrate additional benefit.

Clinical, organizational, and pharmacoeconomic perspectives of dalbavancin vs standard of care in the infectious disease network

Introduction

The therapeutic approach to the patient with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) and complicated infections often involves the early transition from intravenous to oral therapy (early switch) or early discharge. Our study aimed to evaluate sustainable and innovative care models that can be transferred to community healthcare and the economic impact of dalbavancin therapy vs Standard of Care (SoC) therapy for the treatment of ABSSSI and other Gram-positive infections including those by multidrug-resistant organisms. We also described the organization of an infectious disease network that allows optimizing the treatment of ABSSSI and other complex infections with dalbavancin.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively studied all patients treated with dalbavancin in the University Hospital "S. Anna" of Ferrara, Italy, between November 2016 and December 2022. The clinical information of each patient was collected from the hospital's SAP database and used to evaluate the impact of dalbavancin in early discharge with reduction of length of stay promoting dehospitalization and in improving adherence to antibiotic therapy.

Results

A total of 287 patients (165 males and 122 females) were included in the study of which 62 were treated with dalbavancin. In 13/62 patients dalbavancin was administered in a single dose at the completion of therapy to facilitate early discharge. Assuming a 12-day hospitalization required for the treatment of ABSSSI or to complete the treatment of osteomyelitis or spondilodiscitis, the treatment with dalbavancin results in a cost reduction of more than €3,200 per single patient compared to SoC (dancomycin, linezolid or vancomycin).

Conclusions

Dalbavancin has proven to be a valid therapeutic aid in the organization of a territorial infectious disease network given its prolonged action, which allows the dehospitalization with management of even patients with complex infections in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy.

The efficacy of dalbavancin and impact on hospitalization and treatment costs in patients with ABSSSI

Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) represent a common and costly healthcare burden, accounting for millions of annual infections and billions of dollars in healthcare expenditures. Dalbavancin is a long-acting glycopeptide antibiotic that has demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of ABSSSIs. This review article will examine the efficacy of dalbavancin and focus on its impact on the hospital length of stay and costs associated with management of these infections.

The Potential Utility of Single-Dose Long-Acting Intravenous Antibiotics for Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin-Structure Infections in the Emergency Department

Acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs) are frequent clinical presentations to emergency departments (EDs) across the nation that can require substantial resources to treat due to several factors. These include an increasing prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) as the causative organism, limited availability of oral antibiotics that treat ABSSSIs secondary to MRSA, absorption and pharmacodynamic concerns with oral therapy, and regimen adherence. In patients who are unable to tolerate oral therapy, or are unable to adhere to prescribed antibiotics, inpatient admission for intravenous (IV) antibiotics may be necessary. Although inpatient IV antibiotics used to treat MRSA, such as vancomycin, are relatively inexpensive, hospital admission itself incurs significant associated costs. The introduction of the long-acting lipoglycopeptides, dalbavancin and oritavancin, has many potential advantages for the treatment of ABSSSIs including one- or two-dose regimens, allowing patients to receive their dose in the ED or infusion center and avoid inpatient admission altogether. Existing data have borne out these results, demonstrating that these agents can significantly reduce the length of hospital stay and the overall treatment cost of ABSSSIs. However, as these agents have nontraditional therapeutic regimens compared with alternative IV and oral agents that require consistent dosing, it is imperative to have decision support tools in place to ensure that this therapy is utilized in appropriate patients with ABSSSIs and that its true benefits can be realized for both the patient and the health care system.

Cost analysis of dalbavancin versus standard of care for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) in two Italian hospitals

Objectives

Thanks to its long half-life, dalbavancin qualifies as an optimal drug for saving costs. We aimed to assess the cost and effectiveness of dalbavancin versus the standard of care (SoC).

Patients and methods

We conducted a multicentre retrospective study, including all hospitalized or outpatients diagnosed with ABSSSIs at Padua University Hospital, Padua and San Paolo Hospital, Milan (1 January 2016 to 31 July 2020). We compared patients according to antibiotic treatment (dalbavancin versus SoC), the number of lines of dalbavancin treatment, and monotherapy or combination (dalbavancin in association with other antibiotics). Primary endpoints were direct medical costs and length of hospital stay (LOS) associated with ABSSSI management; Student's t-test, chi-squared test and one-way ANOVA were used.

Results

One hundred and twenty-six of 228 (55.3%) patients received SoC, while 102/228 (44.7%) received dalbavancin. Twenty-seven of the 102 (26.5%) patients received dalbavancin as first-line treatment, 46 (45.1%) as second-line, and 29 (28.4%) as third- or higher-line treatment. Most patients received dalbavancin as monotherapy (62/102; 60.8%). Compared with SoC, dalbavancin was associated with a significant reduction of LOS (5 ± 7.47 days for dalbavancin, 9.2 ± 5.59 days for SoC; P < 0.00001) and with lower mean direct medical costs (3470 ± 2768€ for dalbavancin; 3493 ± 1901€ for SoC; P = 0.9401). LOS was also reduced for first-line dalbavancin, in comparison with second-, third- or higher-line groups, and for dalbavancin monotherapy versus combination therapy. Mean direct medical costs were significantly lower in first-line dalbavancin compared with higher lines, but no cost difference was observed between monotherapy and combination therapy.

Conclusions

Monotherapy with first-line dalbavancin was confirmed as a promising strategy for ABSSSIs in real-life settings, thanks to its property in reducing LOS and saving direct medical costs.

Cost analysis of disease including treatment with dalbavancin in a Spanish hospital: ECODAL ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Dalbavancin is an antibiotic with activity against gram-positive bacteria that allows early discharge of patients requiring intravenous therapy. Outpatient treatment helps offset hospitalisation costs associated with standard intravenous treatment. Our objective was to assess the cost of disease management, including treatment with dalbavancin, in a Spanish hospital for 1 year, and the hypothetical costs associated with treatment with other therapeutic alternatives to dalbavancin.

METHODS

A single-centre, observational, retrospective post-hoc analysis was conducted based on electronic medical records analysing all patients who received dalbavancin treatment for 1 year; cost analysis was performed for the whole process. In addition, three scenarios designed on the basis of real clinical practice by clinical experts were hypothesised: (i) individual therapeutic alternative to dalbavancin, (ii) all patients treated with daptomycin, and (iii) all days of dalbavancin as outpatient treatment transformed into hospital stay. Costs were obtained from the hospital.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were treated with dalbavancin; their mean age was 57.9 years, and 70.6% were men. The main reasons for dalbavancin use were outpatient management (61.7%, n = 21) and ensuring treatment adherence (26.5%, n = 9). The main indications were: osteoarticular infection (32.4%) and infective endocarditis (29.4%). One-half (50%) of the infections were due to Staphylococcus aureus (23.5% were methicillin resistant). All patients achieved clinical resolution, and no costs associated with dalbavancin-associated adverse events or re-admissions were reported. The mean total cost of treatment was 22,738€per patient, with the greatest expenditures in interventions (8,413€) and hospital stay (6,885€). The mean cost of dalbavancin treatment was 3,936€; without dalbavancin, this cost could have been increased to 3,324-11,038€depending on the scenario, mainly due to hospital stays.

MAIN LIMITATION

Limited sample size obtained from a single centre.

CONCLUSION

The economic impact of the management of these infections is high. The cost of dalbavancin is offset by the decreased length of stay.

Dalbavancin Boosts the Ability of Neutrophils to Fight Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNs) are the most important cell type involved in the early nonspecific host response to bacterial pathogens. Staphylococcus aureus has evolved mechanisms to evade immune responses that contribute to its persistence in PMNs, and acquired resistance to several antimicrobials. Additionally, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is one of the most common causes of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ABSSSIs). Dalbavancin (DBV), a lipoglycopeptide, is indicated for the treatment of ABSSSIs, and has a broad spectrum of action against most microorganisms. Here, we sought to determine the effect of DBV on the neutrophil killing of MRSA and its potential immunomodulating activity. Our results revealed that DBV boosts MRSA killing by acting on both bacteria and PMNs. DBV pre-treatment of PMNs did not change the respiratory burst or degranulation, while an increased trend in neutrophil extracellular traps-associated elastase and in the production of TNFα and CXCL8 was revealed. In parallel, DBV caused a delay in the apoptosis of MRSA-infected neutrophils. In conclusion, we demonstrated a cooperative effect between the antimicrobial properties of PMNs and DBV, thus owing to their immunomodulatory activity. In the choice of the treatment management of serious S. aureus infections, DBV should be considered as an outstanding option since it reinforces PMNs pathogen clearance capability by exerting its effect directly, not only on MRSA but also on neutrophils.

Tackling Extended Hospital Stays in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

Hospitalisation rates for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection (ABSSSI) are rising and represent a large pharmacoeconomic burden as treatment may involve an extended number of days of antibiotic therapy. This article first aims to provide a review of treatment challenges associated with ABSSSIs in both hospital and outpatient settings, and shows that while more traditionally treatment has been conducted in a hospital setting, for a number of patients, a variety of considerations, including pharmacoeconomics, infection control, and patient preference, has led to the development of recommendations to assess the eligibility of patients for early discharge from hospital to complete their antibiotic regimen in the outpatient setting. However, such patients require monitoring for drug adherence to oral regimens or complications associated with daily intravenous administration, such as injection site reactions and infection. This review also focuses on one of a number of new antibiotics for ABSSSI, dalbavancin, as the long-acting glycopeptide with the most clinical experience to date. This antibiotic has been shown to be as effective as a daily/twice daily regimen with similar safety profiles. Health economic analysis of dalbavancin is also presented. It has shown that in some, though not all, clinical settings a reduction in the overall treatment cost is evident as, despite a higher medication cost, the lower hospitalisation time can lead to greater cost savings. In conclusion, while the burden of ABSSSI is rising, new treatment options provide additional therapeutic choice, although pharmacoeconomic considerations might limit use in some cases.

Dalbavancin for the management of osteomyelitis: a major step forward?

Osteomyelitis is one of the most challenging infectious diseases to treat and is associated with a significant burden to healthcare systems. There are limited available therapeutic options to treat osteomyelitis caused by Gram-positive pathogens and these are not without limitations. Dalbavancin is a long-acting lipoglycopeptide, approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections caused by designated susceptible strains of Gram-positive microorganisms. It demonstrated promising pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties and safety data to be considered for the treatment of bone infections. However, information on the effectiveness and safety of dalbavancin in the treatment of invasive Gram-positive infections, such as osteomyelitis, is very limited. In this review, we describe the novel characteristics and potential utility of dalbavancin in the treatment of osteomyelitis and summarize its long-term clinical outcomes from published case reports, series and comparative studies.

Dalbavancin Efficacy and Impact on Hospital Length-of-Stay and Treatment Costs in Different Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections

Background and Objectives

The study aimed to evaluate the impact of dalbavancin therapy on both hospital length-of-stay (LOS) and treatment-related costs, as well as to describe the clinical outcome, in a retrospective cohort of patients with diverse Gram-positive bacterial infections, hospitalized in different specialty Units.

Methods

From July 2017 to July 2019, clinical and sociodemographic data were collected for all hospitalized patients switched to dalbavancin for the treatment of Gram-positive infections. LOS and treatment-related costs were assessed and compared to a hypothetical scenario where the initial standard antimicrobial therapy would have been administered in hospital for the same duration as dalbavancin.

Results

A total of 50 patients were enrolled. The observed infections were: acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs, 12 patients), complicated ABSSSIs (eight patients), osteoarticular infections (18 patients), vascular graft or cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) infections (12 patients). After a median of 14 [interquartile range (IQR) 7–28] days, the in-hospital antimicrobial therapy was switched to dalbavancin 1500 mg. When appropriate, considering the site and the clinical course of the infection, 1500 mg doses were repeated every 14 days until recovery. Overall, 49/50 (98%) patients reported clinical success at the end of therapy. No relapses were observed in 37 patients for whom a median follow-up of 150 (IQR 30–180) days was available. By switching to dalbavancin, a median of €8,259 (IQR 5644–17,270) and 14 hospital days (IQR 22–47) per patient were saved.

Conclusions

In this experience, the use of dalbavancin contributed to shorten LOS and treatment-related costs, especially in difficult Gram-positive infections requiring prolonged therapy.

Costo-utilità di dalbavancina versus standard of care (SoC) in pazienti con ABSSSI non severa in Italia

Introduction:

Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections (ABSSSIs) include all complicated skin and soft tissue infections. The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis to compare dalbavancin with standard antibiotic therapies for the management of non-severe ABSSSIs from the National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

Methods:

A probabilistic decision tree model was developed considering a 30-days follow-up to simulate the therapeutic pathway of a patient treated with dalbavancin or Standard of Care (SoC). The model considered three mutually exclusive health states: a) discharge of patients from the emergency department, b) discharge of patients after one night from admission, c) discharge after 24 or 36 hours from admission. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted.

Results:

The analysis showed that the use of dalbavancin in patients with non-severe ABSSSI compared to SoC could generate a reduction in costs (– € 291.6 per patient treated) and an increase in QALYs (+0.0018 per patient treated). In 99.7% of the simulations carried out, dalbavancin was dominant compared to the SoC. Considering a threshold for the willingness to pay of € 30,000 for QALY gained, the minimum level of efficacy of dalbavancin so that the treatment can be considered cost-effective compared to the SoC was equal to 69.4%.

Conclusions:

The analysis showed that dalbavancin may represent a cost-effective option compared to SoC for the treatment of patients with non-severe ABSSSI.

Dalbavancin in the Treatment of Bacteremia and Endocarditis in People with Barriers to Standard Care

Introduction: Dalbavancin is an antibiotic administered by intravenous infusion weekly or bi-weekly and is currently FDA-approved only for treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections. It has shown promise, but is not considered the standard of care, for bacteremia and infective endocarditis (IE), which typically require outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) for prolonged durations. People who inject drugs (PWID) with bacteremia or IE are often perceived as having barriers to OPAT and standard daily-administered antibiotics, prompting off-label use of dalbavancin in this population. Methods: A retrospective review of adult patients receiving at least one dose of dalbavancin for bacteremia or IE was conducted between 1 November 2017 and 31 October 2019. Outcomes and reasons for use of dalbavancin were recorded, including specific barriers to standard therapy. Results: Stated reasons for dalbavancin use in the 18 patients identified included active injection drug use (50%), inability to arrange standard OPAT due to patient adherence or inability to place in skilled nursing facility (SNF) (22%), risk for additional infections or other morbidity with OPAT (22%), and patient preference (6%). In 11 patients (61%) SNF placement was not attempted due to behavioral issues or patient declination. There were five patients who did not complete their intended course of treatment (28%). At 90 days, eight patients (44%) achieved a clinical or biologic cure, six (33%) failed treatment, and four (22%) were lost to follow-up. Conclusion: Dalbavancin may have a role as salvage therapy in the treatment of IE and bacteremia in PWID who have significant barriers to standard treatment.