Cost-Effectiveness of Sulbactam-durlobactam Compared with Colistin for Treating Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Infections in Critical Care Settings in the United States
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Objective: Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections present a significant public health challenge in the United States due to multidrug resistance, substantial added inpatient costs, and subsequently high mortality rates. Method: A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sulbactam-durlobactam compared to colistin for treating CRAB infections, using data from the Acinetobacter Treatment Trial Against Colistin (ATTACK) trial, in which patients received either sulbactam-durlobactam or colistin alongside imipenem-cilastatin. The model incorporated survival rates, clinical outcomes (complete or incomplete cure), and the incidence and costs of acute kidney injury, which is more frequent in colistin-treated patients. Deterministic sensitivity analysis and two scenario analyses were performed. Results: The base case analysis estimated an expected per-patient cost of $57,887 for sulbactam-durlobactam compared to $55,157 for colistin. Patients treated with sulbactam-durlobactam had higher survival than those treated with colistin (0.66 versus 0.46), corresponding to 0.19 additional life saved per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sulbactam-durlobactam compared with colistin was $14,097 per additional life saved. The ICER was most sensitive to the proportion of survivors with incomplete clinical cure for both treatments, the costs of sulbactam-durlobactam and cefiderocol, and survival outcomes in patients treated with sulbactam-durlobactam. Scenario analyses showed that the cost-effectiveness of sulbactam-durlobactam was sensitive to clinical cure outcomes, with ICERs ranging from $69,758 per additional life saved to dominance favoring sulbactam-durlobactam under different assumptions. Conclusions: Although treatment costs were higher, sulbactam-durlobactam has a favorable cost-effectiveness profile as compared with colistin when accounting for the costs of managing acute kidney injury.