Supplementary data: Cost–effectiveness of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam for hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Cost–effectiveness of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam for hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Appendix 1: RESTORE IMI-2 Eligibility CriteriaAppendix 2: US age- and sex-matched general population mortality (used in the long-term Markov model)Appendix 3: Model parameters with uncertainty informationAppendix 4: Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis: Cost-effectiveness acceptability curveAppendix 5: Scenario analysisAppendix 6: Indirect Evidence’s Effect on Model ResultsAim: This study evaluates the cost–effectiveness of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL) for treating hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) in an ‘early adjustment prescribing scenario’. Methods: An economic model was constructed to compare two strategies: continuation of empiric piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP/TAZ) versus early adjustment to IMI/REL. A decision tree was used to depict the hospitalization period, and a Markov model used to capture long-term outcomes. Results: IMI/REL generated more quality-adjusted life years than PIP/TAZ, at an increased cost per patient. The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of $17,529 per QALY is below the typical US willingness-to-pay threshold. Conclusion: IMI/RELmay represent a cost-effective treatment for payers and a valuable option for clinicians, when considered alongside patient risk factors, local epidemiology, and susceptibility data.

本数据集为发表在《比较疗效研究杂志》上的文章《依米匹能/西司他丁/雷拉巴坦治疗医院获得性和呼吸机相关性细菌性肺炎的成本效益》的同行评审补充材料。附录1：RESTORE IMI-2 资格标准附录2：美国按年龄和性别匹配的一般人群死亡率（用于长期马尔可夫模型）附录3：具有不确定性信息的模型参数附录4：概率敏感性分析：成本效益可接受性曲线附录5：情景分析附录6：间接证据对模型结果的影响。研究目标：本研究评估了在‘早期调整处方场景’下，依米匹能/西司他丁/雷拉巴坦（IMI/REL）治疗医院获得性细菌性肺炎和呼吸机相关性细菌性肺炎（HABP/VABP）的成本效益。研究方法：构建了一个经济模型，以比较两种策略：继续使用经验性的哌拉西林/他唑巴坦（PIP/TAZ）与早期调整为IMI/REL。使用决策树描绘住院期，并采用马尔可夫模型捕捉长期结果。研究结果：与PIP/TAZ相比，IMI/REL产生了更多的质量调整生命年，但每位患者的成本也相应增加。每质量调整生命年的增量成本效益比为17,529美元，低于典型的美国意愿支付阈值。研究结论：在考虑患者的风险因素、当地流行病学和耐药性数据的情况下，IMI/REL可能代表对支付者而言具有成本效益的治疗方案，并为临床医生提供了一个有价值的选项。