Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38938145›Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2024

Cefiderocol for treating severe aerobic Gram-negative bacterial infections: technology evaluation to inform a novel subscription-style payment model.

Beth Woods, Laetitia Schmitt, Dina Jankovic, Benjamin Kearns, Alison Scope, Shijie Ren, Tushar Srivastava, Chu Chang Ku, Jean Hamilton, Claire Rothery and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Beth WoodsCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7669-9415
Laetitia SchmittCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1052-488X
Dina JankovicCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9311-1409
Benjamin KearnsSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7730-668X
Alison ScopeSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1604-1758
Shijie RenSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3568-7124
Tushar SrivastavaSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5961-9348
Chu Chang KuSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4719-117X
Jean HamiltonSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3326-9842
Claire RotheryCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7759-4084
Laura BojkeCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7921-9109
Mark SculpherCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3746-9913
Sue HarnanSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9318-9206

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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 cefiderocol 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 the 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 cefiderocol 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. The clinical effectiveness of cefiderocol relative to its comparators was estimated by synthesising evidence on susceptibility of the pathogens of interest to the antimicrobials in a network meta-analysis. Patient-level costs and health outcomes of cefiderocol under various usage scenarios compared with alternative management strategies 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 values 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 cefiderocol. Results: Among Conclusion: This work has provided quantitative estimates of the value of cefiderocol within its areas of expected usage within the NHS. Limitations: Given existing evidence, the estimates of the value of cefiderocol 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) Health Technology Assessment Policy Research Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135591), 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

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsCefiderocolCephalosporinsCost-Benefit AnalysisGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalEnglandHumansQuality of LifeState MedicineAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefiderocolCephalosporinsANTIBACTERIAL AGENTSBACTERIALBETA-LACTAMASESCEFIDEROCOLCOLISTINCOST–BENEFIT ANALYSISCOST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSISDRUG RESISTANCEEXPERT ELICITATIONGRAM-NEGATIVE BACTERIAL INFECTIONSMICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTSNETWORK META-ANALYSISOXACILLINASEPSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSAQUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE-YEARSSYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Identifiers

PMID38938145
PMCPMC11229178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.