MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3208043187 · doi:10.1101/2021.11.03.21265881

Fidaxomicin as first line: What will it cost in the USA and Canada?

2021· preprint· en· W3208043187 on OpenAlexaffabout
Devangi Patel, Julien Senécal, Brad Spellberg, Andrew M. Morris, Lynora Saxinger, Brent Footer, Emily G. McDonald, Todd C. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of AlbertaMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFidaxomicinFormularyMedicineHealth careHealth economicsPopulationCost effectivenessClinical trialRandomized controlled trialIntensive care medicineVancomycinPublic healthFamily medicineEnvironmental healthInternal medicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Importance Recent changes in the Infectious Diseases and Healthcare Epidemiology Societies of America (IDSA-SHEA) guidelines for managing Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) have placed fidaxomicin as first-line treatment. Objective To estimate the net cost of first line fidaxomicin compared to vancomycin in the American and Canadian healthcare systems and to estimate the price points at which fidaxomicin would become cost saving. In Canada, net costs were from the public payer perspective. In the US, costs were from a healthcare and payer perspective. Data sources We identified all randomized controlled trials comparing fidaxomicin with vancomycin through the 2021 IDSA-SHEA guideline update. Medication costs were obtained from internet prices (US) and the Quebec drug formulary (Canada). The average cost of a CDI recurrence was established through a systematic review for each country. Study selection For fidaxomicin efficacy, we included double-blind and placebo-controlled trials. For the systematic review of recurrence costs, studies were included if they were primary research articles, had a cost-analysis of CDI, included cases of recurrent CDI, and were calculated with cost parameters from American or Canadian healthcare systems. Studies were excluded if the population was solely pediatric or hospitalized. Data extraction and Synthesis For the efficacy meta-analysis, data was pooled using a restricted maximal likelihood random effects model. For the cost review, the mean cost across identified studies was adjusted to reflect July 2022 dollars. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was CDI recurrence at Day 40. The primary outcome of the systematic review was the average cost of a CDI recurrence in the American and Canadian healthcare systems. The objective was to estimate the net cost per recurrence prevented and the price point below which fidaxomicin would be cost saving to either the public payer (Canada) or the insurer (US). Results The estimated mean system cost of a CDI recurrence was $15147USD and $8806CAD, respectively. At current drug pricing, to prevent one recurrence by using first line fidaxomicin over vancomycin would cost $43904USD (95%CI $35123-$65856) and $13,760CAD (95%CI $11,008-$20,640), respectively. The likelihood of fidaxomicin offering cost savings varies by country, with a 95% probability of fidaxomicin being cost saving if priced below $1180USD or $860CAD respectively. Conclusions and Relevance An increased drug expenditure on fidaxomicin will not be offset through recurrence prevention unless the fidaxomicin price is negotiated.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.015
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research→French-language works237,207→