ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2025
Assessing the Value of New Antimicrobials: Evaluations of Cefiderocol and Ceftazidime-Avibactam to Inform Delinked Payments by the NHS in England.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reframing the value of reserve antibiotics: how ultra-orphan reimbursement pathways could offer fair and equitable access to new antibiotics.Health policy OPEN · 2026Article
- Exploring the perspectives of antimicrobial stewardship pharmacists in England on the subscription model for antimicrobial drugs.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial resistance at a turning point: microbial drivers, one health, and global futures.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe UK has recently established subscription-payment agreements for two antimicrobials: cefiderocol and ceftazidime-avibactam. This article summarises the novel value assessments that informed this process and lessons learned for future pricing and funding decisions.
methodsThe evaluations used decision modelling to predict population incremental net health effects (INHEs), informed by systematic reviews, evidence syntheses, national surveillance data and structured expert elicitation.
resultsSignificant challenges faced during the development of the evaluations led to profound uncertainty in the estimates of INHEs. The value assessment required definition of the population expected to receive the new antimicrobials; estimating value within this heterogenous population; assessing comparative efficacy using antimicrobial susceptibility data due to the absence of relevant clinical data; and predicting population-level benefits despite poor data on current numbers of drug-resistant infections and uncertainties around emerging resistance. Though both antimicrobials offer the potential to treat multi-drug resistant infections, the benefits estimated were modest due to the rarity of true pan-resistance, low life expectancy of the patient population and difficulty of identifying and quantifying additional sources of value.
conclusionsAssessing the population INHEs of new antimicrobials was complex and resource intensive. Future evaluations should continue to assemble evidence relating to areas of expected usage, patient numbers over time and comparative effectiveness and safety. Projections of patient numbers could be greatly enhanced by the development of national level linked clinical, prescribing and laboratory data. A practical approach to synthesising these data would be to combine expert assessments of key parameters with a simple generic decision model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.