ArticleAmerican health & drug benefits2019
Budget Impact of Omadacycline for the Treatment of Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia in the United States from the Hospital Perspective.
Article in American health & drug benefits, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Omadacycline Efficacy againstComputational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
- The Role of Delafloxacin in Patients with Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia in the Outpatient Setting: A Budget Impact Model.Clinical drug investigation · 2020Article
- Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia-Changing Epidemiology, Resistance Patterns, and Newer Antibiotics: Spotlight on Delafloxacin.Clinical drug investigation · 2020Review
- Hospital Admission Patterns in Adult Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia Who Received Ceftriaxone and a Macrolide by Disease Severity across United States Hospitals.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Omadacycline: a novel aminomethylcycline.Infection and drug resistance · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is an acute, lower respiratory bacterial infection. Despite advances in medical care, CABP remains associated with considerable morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs; early empiric treatment is recommended by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and by the American Thoracic Society. Omadacycline is an oral and intravenous (IV) once-daily aminomethylcycline antibiotic that is approved in the United States for the treatment of adult patients with CABP.
objectiveTo estimate the budget impact of introducing omadacycline as a treatment option among patients with suspected or documented CABP from a US hospital perspective.
methodsA budget impact model was developed in Microsoft Excel
resultsThe introduction of omadacycline as a treatment resulted in a total budget increase of $20,643 over 3 years. This increase was mainly attributed to treatment acquisition costs. In a scenario where the length of hospital stay was reduced by 1 day (under the assumption that an antibiotic with IV and oral formulations can facilitate earlier discharge from inpatient care), the 3-year total budget decreased to $2384; reducing the hospital stay by 2 days resulted in 3-year cost-savings of $15,875. Shifting inpatient care to the outpatient setting with omadacycline resulted in 3-year cumulative cost-savings of $112,843.
conclusionThis is the first omadacycline budget impact model developed for adult patients with suspected or documented CABP. The model projected a modest budget increase with the introduction of omadacycline, mainly due to treatment acquisition costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30996766PMC6442092W2920865212What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.