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

<b>These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article '</b><b>Cost–effectiveness of </b><b>imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam for </b><b>hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated </b><b>bacterial pneumonia</b><b>' published in the</b><b> </b><b><i>Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research</i></b><b>.</b><b>Appendix 1: </b>RESTORE IMI-2 Eligibility Criteria<b>Appendix 2:</b> US age- and sex-matched general population mortality (used in the long-term Markov model)<b>Appendix 3: </b>Model parameters with uncertainty information<b>Appendix 4: </b>Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis: Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve<b>Appendix 5: </b>Scenario analysis<b>Appendix 6: </b>Indirect Evidence’s Effect on Model Results<b>Aim:</b> 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’.<b> Methods:</b> 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. <b>Results:</b> 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. <b>Conclusion:</b> 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.