Search

Background: To limit the use of antimicrobials without disincentivising the development of novel antimicrobials, there is interest in establishing innovative models that fund antimicrobials based on an evaluation of their value as opposed to the volumes used. The aim of this project was to evaluate the population-level health benefit of ceftazidime-avibactam in the NHS in England, for the treatment of severe aerobic Gram-negative bacterial infections when used within its licensed indications. The results were used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance in support of commercial discussions regarding contract value between the manufacturer and NHS England., Methods: The health benefit of ceftazidime-avibactam was first derived for a series of high-value clinical scenarios. These represented uses that were expected to have a significant impact on patients' mortality risks and health-related quality of life. Patient-level costs and health-related quality of life of ceftazidime-avibactam under various usage scenarios compared with alternative management strategies in the high-value clinical scenarios were quantified using decision modelling. Results were reported as incremental net health effects expressed in quality-adjusted life-years, which were scaled to 20-year population in quality-adjusted life-years using infection number forecasts based on data from Public Health England. The outcomes estimated for the high-value clinical scenarios were extrapolated to other expected uses for ceftazidime-avibactam., Results: The clinical effectiveness of ceftazidime-avibactam relative to its comparators was estimated by synthesising evidence on susceptibility of the pathogens of interest to the antimicrobials in a network meta-analysis. In the base case, ceftazidime-avibactam was associated with a statistically significantly higher susceptibility relative to colistin (odds ratio 7.24, 95% credible interval 2.58 to 20.94). The remainder of the treatments were associated with lower susceptibility than colistin (odds ratio < 1). The results were sensitive to the definition of resistance and the studies included in the analysis. In the base case, patient-level benefit of ceftazidime-avibactam was between 0.08 and 0.16 quality-adjusted life-years, depending on the site of infection and the usage scenario. There was a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the benefits of ceftazidime-avibactam across all subgroups, and the results were sensitive to assumptions in the meta-analysis used to estimate susceptibility. There was substantial uncertainty in the number of infections that are suitable for treatment with ceftazidime-avibactam, so population-level results are presented for a range of scenarios for the current infection numbers, the expected increases in infections over time, and rates of emergence of resistance. The population-level benefit varied substantially across the scenarios, from 531 to 2342 quality-adjusted life-years over 20 years., Conclusion: This work has provided quantitative estimates of the value of ceftazidime-avibactam within its areas of expected usage within the NHS., Limitations: Given existing evidence, the estimates of the value of ceftazidime-avibactam are highly uncertain., Future Work: Future evaluations of antimicrobials would benefit from improvements to NHS data linkages, research to support appropriate synthesis of susceptibility studies, and application of routine data and decision modelling to assess enablement value., Study Registration: No registration of this study was undertaken., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135592), conducted through the Policy Research Unit in Economic Methods of Evaluation in Health and Social Care Interventions, PR-PRU-1217-20401, and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 73. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Aims: Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) is a first line investigation for chest pain in patients with suspected obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). However, many acute cardiac events occur in the absence of obstructive CAD. We assessed the lifetime cost-effectiveness of integrating a novel artificial intelligence-enhanced image analysis algorithm (AI-Risk) that stratifies the risk of cardiac events by quantifying coronary inflammation, combined with the extent of coronary artery plaque and clinical risk factors, by analysing images from routine CCTA., Methods and Results: A hybrid decision-tree with population cohort Markov model was developed from 3,393 consecutive patients who underwent routine CCTA for suspected obstructive CAD and followed up for major adverse cardiac events over a median(IQR) of 7.7(6.4-9.1) years. In a prospective real-world evaluation survey of 744 consecutive patients undergoing CCTA for chest pain investigation, the availability of AI-Risk assessment led to treatment initiation or intensification in 45% of patients. In a further prospective study of 1,214 consecutive patients with extensive guideline recommended cardiovascular risk profiling, AI-Risk stratification led to treatment initiation or intensification in 39% of patients beyond the current clinical guideline recommendations. Treatment guided by AI-Risk modelled over a lifetime horizon could lead to fewer cardiac events (relative reductions of 4%, 4%, 11%, and 12% for myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, heart failure and cardiac death, respectively). Implementing AI-Risk classification in routine interpretation of CCTA is highly likely to be cost-effective (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £1,371-3,244), both in scenarios of current guideline compliance or when applied only to patients without obstructive CAD., Conclusions: Compared with standard care, the addition of AI-Risk assessment in routine CCTA interpretation is cost effective, by refining risk guided medical management., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)