IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v23y2025i1d10.1007_s40258-024-00924-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Value of New Antimicrobials: Evaluations of Cefiderocol and Ceftazidime-Avibactam to Inform Delinked Payments by the NHS in England

Author

Listed:
  • Beth Woods

    (University of York)

  • Ben Kearns

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Laetitia Schmitt

    (University of York)

  • Dina Jankovic

    (University of York)

  • Claire Rothery

    (University of York)

  • Sue Harnan

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Jean Hamilton

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Alison Scope

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Shijie Ren

    (University of Sheffield)

  • Laura Bojke

    (University of York)

  • Mark Wilcox

    (University of Leeds and Leeds Teaching Hospitals)

  • William Hope

    (University of Liverpool)

  • Colm Leonard

    (Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe Hospital)

  • Philip Howard

    (University of Leeds
    NHS England)

  • David Jenkins

    (University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust)

  • Alan Ashworth

    (Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust)

  • Andrew Bentley

    (University of Manchester NHS Foundation Trust
    Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre)

  • Mark Sculpher

    (University of York)

Abstract

Objectives The 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. Methods The 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. Results Significant 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. Conclusions Assessing 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Beth Woods & Ben Kearns & Laetitia Schmitt & Dina Jankovic & Claire Rothery & Sue Harnan & Jean Hamilton & Alison Scope & Shijie Ren & Laura Bojke & Mark Wilcox & William Hope & Colm Leonard & Philip , 2025. "Assessing the Value of New Antimicrobials: Evaluations of Cefiderocol and Ceftazidime-Avibactam to Inform Delinked Payments by the NHS in England," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 5-17, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00924-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00924-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-024-00924-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-024-00924-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-024-00924-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.