Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Bacteremia: A Real-World Comparative Clinical Outcomes Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia results in substantial morbidity and mortality. As current treatments often lead to unsatisfactory outcomes, evidence guiding alternative treatment options is needed. This study evaluated real-world clinical outcomes of ceftaroline fosamil for the treatment of MRSA bacteremia.

METHODS

This retrospective study included adults hospitalized with MRSA bacteremia between 2011 and 2019. Patients were classified according to treatment with ceftaroline fosamil (ceftaroline), vancomycin, or daptomycin: Group 1, ceftaroline; Group 2, vancomycin or daptomycin (without ceftaroline); Group 3, combination therapy with ≥ 2 of these three agents. Clinical outcomes were compared using propensity-score-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) from logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Overall, 24,479 patients were included (Group 1, n = 532; Group 2, n = 21,555; Group 3, n = 2392). Mean age was 59.6, 60.8, and 57.4 years in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Mean post-index treatment length of stay was 8.8, 8.8, and 8.0 days, respectively. The most frequent line of therapy was ceftaroline first-line (42.1%), vancomycin or daptomycin first-line (95.4%), and combination therapy third-line or later (67.8%) in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Compared with Group 2, Groups 1 and 3 had similar favorable clinical responses {odds ratio [OR] = 1.18 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.44], p = 0.08; OR = 1.20 [95% CI 0.97-1.47], p = 0.09, respectively} and were less likely to switch treatment (both p < 0.001). Compared with Group 2, Group 1 was more likely to undergo 30-day all-cause readmission [OR = 1.38 (95% CI 1.06-1.80), p = 0.02], whereas this was less likely for Group 3 [OR = 0.77 (95% CI 0.58-1.00), p = 0.05].

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving ceftaroline more often had favorable clinical responses than those receiving vancomycin or daptomycin monotherapy. In the absence of large-scale randomized controlled trials, these real-world data provide insights into the potential role of ceftaroline for treating MRSA bacteremia.

Substantial health and economic burden of COVID-19 during the year after acute illness among US adults not at high risk of severe COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Patients recovering from SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute COVID-19 illness can experience a range of long-term post-acute effects. The potential clinical and economic burden of these outcomes in the USA is unclear. We evaluated diagnoses, medications, healthcare utilization, and medical costs before and after acute COVID-19 illness in US patients who were not at high risk of severe COVID-19.

METHODS

This study included eligible adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 from April 1 to May 31, 2020, who were 18 - 64 years of age, and enrolled within Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database for 12 months before and 13 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. Patients with any condition or risk factor placing them at high risk of progression to severe COVID-19 were excluded. Percentages of diagnoses, medications, healthcare utilization, and costs were calculated during baseline (12 months preceding diagnosis) and the post-acute phase (12 months after the 30-day acute phase of COVID-19). Data were stratified into 3 cohorts according to disposition during acute COVID-19 illness (i.e., not hospitalized, hospitalized without intensive care unit [ICU] admission, or admitted to the ICU).

RESULTS

The study included 3792 patients; 56.5% of patients were men, 44% were White, and 94% did not require hospitalization. Compared with baseline, patients during the post-acute phase had percentage increases in the diagnosis of the following disorders: blood (166%), endocrine and metabolic (123%), nervous system (115%), digestive system (76%), and mental and behavioral (75%), along with increases in related prescriptions. Substantial increases in all measures of healthcare utilization were observed among all 3 cohorts. Total medical costs increased by 178% during the post-acute phase. Those who were hospitalized with or without ICU admission during the acute phase had the greatest increases in comorbidities and healthcare resource utilization. However, the burden was apparent across all cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

As evidenced by resource use in the post-acute phase, COVID-19 places a significant long-term clinical and economic burden among US individuals, even among patients whose acute infection did not merit hospitalization.

Substantial health and economic burden of COVID-19 during the year after acute illness among US adults at high risk of severe COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Post-COVID conditions encompass a range of long-term symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The potential clinical and economic burden in the United States is unclear. We evaluated diagnoses, medications, healthcare use, and medical costs before and after acute COVID-19 illness in US patients at high risk of severe COVID-19.

METHODS

Eligible adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 from April 1 to May 31, 2020, had ≥ 1 condition placing them at risk of severe COVID-19, and were enrolled in Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database for ≥ 12 months before and ≥ 13 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. Percentages of diagnoses, medications, resource use, and costs were calculated during baseline (12 months preceding diagnosis) and the post-acute phase (12 months after the 30-day acute phase of COVID-19). Data were stratified by age and COVID-19 severity.

RESULTS

The cohort included 19,558 patients (aged 18-64 y, n = 9381; aged ≥ 65 y, n = 10,177). Compared with baseline, patients during the post-acute phase had increased percentages of blood disorders (16.3%), nervous system disorders (11.1%), and mental and behavioral disorders (7.7%), along with increases in related prescriptions. Overall, there were substantial increases in inpatient and outpatient healthcare utilization, along with a 23.0% increase in medical costs. Changes were greatest among older patients and those admitted to the intensive care unit for acute COVID-19 but were also observed in younger patients and those who did not require COVID-19 hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant clinical and economic burden of post-COVID conditions among US individuals at high risk for severe COVID-19.

Health-related quality of life in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in the UK: a cross-sectional study from pre- to post-infection

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to estimate the impact of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over time among individuals in the United Kingdom, adding to the evidence base that had focussed on severe COVID-19.

METHODS

A bespoke online survey was administered to individuals who self-reported a positive COVID-19 test. An amended version of a validated generic HRQoL instrument (EQ-5D-5L) was used to measure HRQoL retrospectively at different timepoints over the course of an infection: pre-COVID-19, acute COVID-19, and long COVID. In addition, HRQoL post-COVID-19 was captured by the original EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. A mixed-effects model was used to estimate changes in HRQoL over time, adjusted for a range of variables correlated with HRQoL.

RESULTS

The study recruited 406 participants: (i) 300 adults and 53 adolescents with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who had not been hospitalised for COVID-19 during acute COVID-19, and (ii) 53 adults who had been hospitalised for COVID-19 in the acute phase and who had been recruited for validation purposes. Data were collected between January and April 2022. Among participants included in the base-case analysis, EQ-5D-5L utility scores were lower during both acute COVID-19 (β=-0.080, p = 0.001) and long COVID (β=-0.072, p < 0.001) compared to pre COVID-19. In addition, EQ-5D-5L utility scores post-COVID-19 were found to be similar to the EQ-5D-5L utility scores before COVID-19, including for patients who had been hospitalised for COVID-19 during the acute phase or for those who had experienced long COVID. Moreover, being hospitalised in the acute phase was associated with additional utility decrements during both acute COVID-19 (β=-0.147, p = 0.026) and long (β=-0.186, p < 0.001) COVID.

CONCLUSION

Patients perceived their HRQoL to have varied significantly over the course of a mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection. However, HRQoL was found to return to pre-COVID-19 levels, even for patients who had been hospitalised for COVID-19 during the acute phase or for those who had experienced long COVID.

786. Effect of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir versus Placebo on COVID-19─Related Hospitalizations and Other Medical Visits

Background

Nirmatrelvir coadministered with ritonavir (nirmatrelvir/r) is a COVID-19 treatment. This study evaluated nirmatrelvir/r in nonhospitalized, symptomatic adults with COVID-19 at high risk of progressing to severe disease. We report secondary efficacy endpoints associated with COVID-19─related medical visits, including hospitalization details and oxygen support, as of the primary completion data cutoff (Dec 11, 2021).

Methods

In this phase 2/3 double-blind, interventional study, adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and symptom onset ≤ 5 days (d) were randomized 1:1 to receive nirmatrelvir/r 300 mg/100 mg or placebo (PBO) orally every 12 hours for 5 d. COVID-19─related medical visits were collected through Day 28. Oxygen support for COVID-19 and details of COVID-19─related hospitalization, including duration, intensive care unit (ICU) status, and mechanical ventilation, were assessed.

Results

Of the 2246 patients (pts) enrolled globally from Jul to Dec2021, 2085 (nirmatrelvir/r, n=1039; PBO, n=1046) started treatment and met criteria for the modified intent-to-treat population (mITT1; ≤ 5 d of symptom onset, did not/not expected to receive a mAb). Fewer overall COVID-19-related medical visits were reported with nirmatrelvir/r vs PBO (Table 1). In addition to fewer hospitalizations being reported with nirmatrelvir/r (n=8 [0.8%]) vs PBO (n=65 [6.2%]), pts receiving nirmatrelvir/r had fewer hospitalized d (Table 2), with mean durations of 9.6 (range, 5.0, 16.0) d with nirmatrelvir/r and 11.2 (range, 2.0, 57.0) d with PBO in hospitalized pts. No pts in the nirmatrelvir/r group and 9 pts (0.9%) in PBO group were admitted to the ICU. No pts in the nirmatrelvir/r group received mechanical ventilation vs 3 pts in the PBO group. Fewer other COVID-19─related nonhospital medical visits were reported with nirmatrelvir/r vs PBO (Table 3). In the full analysis set, fewer pts required oxygen therapy for COVID-19 with nirmatrelvir/r (n=9/1120 [0.8%]) vs PBO (n=54/1126 [4.8%]).

Conclusion

High-risk adults with symptomatic COVID-19 treated with nirmatrelvir/r within 5 d of symptom onset had fewer COVID-19─related medical visits and reduced healthcare utilization (no ICU visits, no mechanical ventilation, fewer days in hospital) vs pts receiving PBO. Clinical Trial: NCT04960202.

Disclosures

Jennifer Hammond, PhD, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds Heidi Leister-Tebbe, BSN, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds Annie Gardner, MPH, MSPT, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds Paula Abreu, PhD, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds Weihang Bao, PhD, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds Wayne Wisemandle, MA, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds Wajeeha Ansari, MPH, Pfizer Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Rienk Pypstra, MD, MBA, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds James M Rusnak, MD, PhD, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds.

1156. Sustained Alleviation and Resolution of Targeted COVID-19 Symptoms with Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir versus Placebo

Background

Nirmatrelvir with ritonavir (nirmatrelvir/r) is an oral antiviral COVID-19 treatment. We report its efficacy to shorten time to sustained alleviation and resolution of COVID-19 signs/symptoms in nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19 at high risk of severe disease as of primary completion data cut (11 Dec 2021).

Methods

In this phase 2/3 double-blind study, eligible adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and ≤ 5 days (d) of symptoms were randomized 1:1 to nirmatrelvir/r 300 mg/100 mg or placebo (PBO) every 12 hrs for 5 d. Pts logged presence and severity (on 3- or 4-point scales) of prespecified COVID-19 signs/symptoms daily Day 1 (pre-dose) through 28. Times to sustained alleviation and resolution of all targeted signs/symptoms were assessed, summarized with Kaplan-Meier curves, and compared by treatment by log-rank test. Individual signs/symptoms were compared with descriptive analyses.

Results

From Jul–Dec 2021, 2246 pts enrolled; 2085 pts (nirmatrelvir/r, n=1039; PBO, n=1046) met criteria for the mITT1 population (≤ 5 d of symptom onset, did not/not expected to receive an mAb). More pts achieved sustained alleviation or sustained resolution with nirmatrelvir/r. Shorter median times to sustained alleviation/resolution were observed with nirmatrelvir/r (13/16 d) vs PBO (15/19 d; Fig 1 & 2). Also, a shorter median time to sustained alleviation was seen in pts treated ≤ 3 d of symptoms with nirmatrelvir/r (12 d) vs PBO (15 d). The most common symptoms were cough, muscle/body aches, and headache in both groups. The median time to sustained alleviation of cough and headache was 2 d less with nirmatrelvir/r vs PBO. The median time to sustained resolution of muscle aches and shortness of breath was 3 d and 4 d less with nirmatrelvir/r. The proportion of pts with severe signs/symptoms in the nirmatrelvir/r vs PBO group was significantly higher at baseline, but significantly lower after treatment, showing nirmatrelvir/r significantly reduced symptom severity through Day 28 (Fig 3). Pts who were seronegative vs seropositive or had high vs low viral load at baseline achieved faster times to sustained alleviation with nirmatrelvir/r vs PBO.

Conclusion

Nirmatrelvir/r treatment reduced duration and severity of COVID-19 symptoms vs PBO in pts at high risk of progressing to severe disease. NCT04960202.

Disclosures

Jennifer Hammond, PhD, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds Heidi Leister-Tebbe, BSN, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds Annie Gardner, MPH, MSPT, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds Paula Abreu, PhD, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds Weihang Bao, PhD, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds Wayne Wisemandle, MA, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds Wajeeha Ansari, MPH, Pfizer Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Magdalena Alicja Harrington, PhD, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds Jesus Abraham Simón Campos, MD, AstraZeneca: Board Member|AstraZeneca: Speaker|Eli Lilly: Board Member|Pfizer: Board Member|Roche: Board Member|Roche: Speaker Kara W. Chew, M.D., M.S., Merck Sharp & Dohme: Grant/Research Support Rienk Pypstra, MD, MBA, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds James M Rusnak, MD, PhD, Pfizer Inc: Employee|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds.

1077. Understanding the Psychosocial Burden Associated with Hospitalization Among Adults Diagnosed with COVID-19 in the United States

Background

Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States (US), public health officials sought to reduce transmission. However, the psychosocial impact associated with COVID-19 has received less attention. This study describes psychosocial burden among adults diagnosed with COVID-19 and assesses the unique impact on those who had a COVID-19 hospitalization.

Methods

This cross-sectional retrospective study used 2021 US National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS; N=75,098) data. NHWS is an annual web-based self-report survey of the US general adult population (aged ≥ 18 years). Results were weighted to reflect the population on age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education based on US Census. Among adults who self-reported a COVID-19 diagnosis, those with COVID-related hospitalization, emergency room (ER) visit/no hospitalization, and no hospitalization/no ER visit were descriptively compared on demographics, health characteristics, and psychosocial burden measures.

Results

Almost 16 million adults had a COVID-19 diagnosis in the past year; of these, 8% had a COVID-related hospitalization, and 6% had a COVID-related ER visit/no hospitalization. Compared to adults with no ER visit/no hospitalization or ER visit/no hospitalization, those with a hospitalization were more often male, college educated, and employed. Relative to those with no ER visit/no hospitalization, adults with a hospitalization were more often diagnosed, either pre- or post-COVID-19 diagnosis, with allergies (47% vs 38%), asthma (20% vs 11%), pain (37% vs. 25%), headache (25% vs 16%), migraine (27% vs 15%), type 2 diabetes (16% vs 10%), dry eye (25% vs 12%), and sleep apnea (15% vs 11%). Adults with a hospitalization had lower mental, physical, and general health-related quality of life, 2-3.4 times higher work/non-work impairment, and 2 times higher positive depression screen rate than those with no ER visit/no hospitalization.

Conclusion

US adults with a COVID-related hospitalization had higher psychosocial burden than those without a hospitalization on several domains. Accordingly, reducing COVID-related hospitalizations, particularly among the employed and those with comorbidities, will be vital to help mitigate this burden.

Disclosures

Wajeeha Ansari, MPH, Pfizer Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Florin Draica, MD, Pfizer Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Joanna Atkinson, MD, Pfizer Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Kathy Annunziata, MA, Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Employee of Cerner Enviza, which received funding from Pfizer to conduct and report on the study Martine C. Maculaitis, PhD, Cerner Enviza: Employee of Cerner Enviza, which received funding from Pfizer to conduct and report on the study. Amie Scott, MPH, Pfizer Inc.: Stocks/Bonds.

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Empiric Treatment of Hospitalized Adults with cSSTI: An Economic Analysis from the Perspective of the Spanish National Health System

Purpose

Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) are associated with high healthcare resource use and costs. The emergency nature of cSSTI hospitalizations requires starting immediate empiric intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, making the appropriate choice of initial antibiotic therapy crucial.

Patients and Methods

The use of ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other IV antibiotic therapies for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with cSSTI (vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, cloxacillin, tedizolid) was evaluated through cost consequences analysis. The model structure was a decision tree accounting for four different pathways: patients demonstrating early response (ER) either discharged early (with oral antibiotic) or remaining in hospital to continue the initial therapy; non-responders either remaining on the initial IV therapy or switching to a second-line antibiotic. The model perspective was the Spanish National Health System.

Results

CFT resulted in average percentage of patients discharged early (PDE) of 24.6% (CI 19.49–30.2%) with average total cost per patient of €6763 (€6268–€7219). Vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin and tedizolid resulted in average PDE of 22% (17.34–27.09%), 26.4% (20.5–32.32%), 28.6% (22.08–35.79%) and 26.5% (20.39–33.25%), respectively, for a total cost per patient of €6,619 (€5,902–€6,929), €6,394 (€5,881–€6,904), €6,855 (€5,800–€7,410) and €7,173 (€6,608–€7,763), respectively. Key model drivers were ER and antibiotic treatment duration, with hospital costs accounting for over 83% of the total expenditures.

Conclusion

Given its clinical and safety profile, CFT is an acceptable choice for cSSTI empiric therapy providing comparable ER and costs to other relevant antibiotic options.

1604. Cost-Effectiveness of Ceftazidime-Avibactam for Patients with Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia Caused by Multi-Drug Resistant Enterobacteriaceae or Pseudomonas in China

Background

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by multi-drug resistant enterobacteriaceae (MDRE) or MDR pseudomonas aeruginosa (MDRPA) in China.

Methods

A previously published patient-level simulation model was localized to China to estimate the cost-effectiveness of first-line CAZ-AVI compared to meropenem from a healthcare perspective. Patients flowed through the model which evaluates resistance status, response, and adverse events (AEs), which can all lead to a treatment switch. Second-line therapy of colistin plus high dose meropenem was used for both arms. Resistance rates were 0.7% (CAZ-AVI) and 7.6% (meropenem) for MDRE, and 10.7% (CAZ-AVI) and 35.5% (meropenem) for MDRPA. Effectiveness rates for CAZ-AVI and meropenem were based on a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. All cost data, including drugs, AEs, and hospitalization were localized to China. Utility values were based on response and sourced from the literature. Costs and benefits were discounted at 5% over the five year time horizon.

Results

At a cost-effectiveness threshold of three-times GDP per capita, CAZ-AVI was cost-effective compared to meropenem for HAP/VAP caused by both MDRE and MDRPA with ICERs of ¥147,500 and ¥30,496, respectively. Specifically, CAZ-AVI had ¥13,699 and 0.09 additional total costs and QALYs, respectively, within MDRE; ¥5,207 and 0.17 additional total costs and QALYs, respectively, within MDRPA. Length of stay was reduced by 0.65 days and 1.37 in the CAZ-AVI arms of the MDRE and MDRPA analyses, respectively.

Conclusion

CAZ-AVI is a cost-effective alternative to meropenem in the treatment of HAP/VAP caused by MDRE or MDRPA in China.

Disclosures

Wesley Furnback, BA, Pfizer (Consultant) YiXi Chen, MSc, Pfizer (Employee) Peng Dong, PhD, Pfizer (Employee) Bruce Wang, PhD, Pfizer (Consultant) Wajeeha Ansari, MSc, Pfizer (Employee) Claudie Charbonneau, PhD, Pfizer (Employee) Hengjing Dong, MD, Pfizer (Other Financial or Material Support, Honorarium)

Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes Among Patients with Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: Analysis of the Phase 3 COVERS Randomized Trial of Ceftaroline Fosamil Versus Vancomycin Plus Aztreonam

Aim

Exploratory analyses evaluated patient characteristics and outcomes among patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI) in the phase 3 COVERS study who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

Adults with cSSTI (surface area ≥ 75 cm²) and evidence of systemic inflammation and/or underlying comorbidities were randomized 2:1 to intravenous ceftaroline fosamil (600 mg every 8 h [q8h]) or vancomycin (15 mg/kg every 12 h) plus aztreonam (1 g q8h) for 5–14 days. Clinical response and ICU length of stay (LOS) within first hospitalization were evaluated in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations; a Cox proportional hazards model identified factors associated with increased hospital LOS.

Results

Overall, 42 of 761 randomized patients were admitted to the ICU (ceftaroline fosamil, n = 32; vancomycin plus aztreonam, n = 10) prior to, or at start of, study treatment. Baseline differences between the ICU and non-ICU populations were indicative of more severe disease in ICU patients; within this subset, there were also some notable imbalances between treatment groups. Clinical cure rates at test-of-cure (ceftaroline fosamil vs. vancomycin plus aztreonam) were generally similar in the non-ICU and ICU subsets (MITT population 79% vs. 79% and 69% vs. 90.0%, respectively; CE population 87% vs. 85% and 80% vs. 89%, respectively). Median ICU LOS was 8 vs. 13 days, respectively. ICU admission was a risk factor predicting increased hospital LOS (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Clinical outcomes for patients admitted to the ICU were generally similar to non-ICU patients, despite more severe baseline disease, with shorter median treatment duration in the ceftaroline fosamil group. ICU admission was associated with longer hospital LOS. Given the small sample size and unbalanced patient and disease characteristics within the ICU subgroup, differences between treatment groups should be interpreted with caution.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01499277.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40121-020-00297-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Economic analysis of ceftaroline fosamil for treating community-acquired pneumonia in Spain

Background: Adults admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) impose significant burden upon limited hospital resources. To achieve early response and possibly early discharge, thus reducing hospital expenditure, the choice of initial antibiotic therapy is pivotal.Methods: A cost-consequences model was developed to evaluate ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other antibiotic therapies (ceftriaxone, co-amoxiclav, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin) for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with moderate/severe CAP (PORT score III-IV) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).Findings: Compared with ceftriaxone, the model predicted an increase in the number of CFT-treated patients discharged early (PDE) (30.6% vs. 26.1%) while decreasing initial antibiotic failures (3.8% vs. 7.6%). For patients with pneumococcal pneumonia, CFT was cost-saving vs. ceftriaxone (by 1.2%) and significantly increased PDE (32.1% vs. 24.6%). CFT resulted in cost-saving vs. levofloxacin, due lower initial antibiotic therapy costs and increased PDE (30.6% vs. 14.9%). Moxifloxacin and co-amoxiclav early response rate of 53.63% and 54.24% resulted in cost neutrality vs. CFT, with direct comparison hampered by the significantly different early response criteria utilized in the literature.Conclusions: Despite a higher unit cost, CFT is a reasonable alternative to other agents for adults hospitalized with moderate/severe CAP, given the projected higher PDE achieved with similar or lower total costs.

Value of hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs [ASPs]: a systematic review

Background

Hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) aim to promote judicious use of antimicrobials to combat antimicrobial resistance. For ASPs to be developed, adopted, and implemented, an economic value assessment is essential. Few studies demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of ASPs. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the economic and clinical impact of ASPs.

Methods

An update to the Dik et al. systematic review (2000–2014) was conducted on EMBASE and Medline using PRISMA guidelines. The updated search was limited to primary research studies in English (30 September 2014–31 December 2017) that evaluated patient and/or economic outcomes after implementation of hospital ASPs including length of stay (LOS), antimicrobial use, and total (including operational and implementation) costs.

Results

One hundred forty-six studies meeting inclusion criteria were included. The majority of these studies were conducted within the last 5 years in North America (49%), Europe (25%), and Asia (14%), with few studies conducted in Africa (3%), South America (3%), and Australia (3%). Most studies were conducted in hospitals with 500–1000 beds and evaluated LOS and change in antibiotic expenditure, the majority of which showed a decrease in LOS (85%) and antibiotic expenditure (92%). The mean cost-savings varied by hospital size and region after implementation of ASPs. Average cost savings in US studies were $732 per patient (range: $2.50 to $2640), with similar trends exhibited in European studies. The key driver of cost savings was from reduction in LOS. Savings were higher among hospitals with comprehensive ASPs which included therapy review and antibiotic restrictions.

Conclusions

Our data indicates that hospital ASPs have significant value with beneficial clinical and economic impacts. More robust published data is required in terms of implementation, LOS, and overall costs so that decision-makers can make a stronger case for investing in ASPs, considering competing priorities. Such data on ASPs in lower- and middle-income countries is limited and requires urgent attention.