Antibiotic research and development: business as usual?

This article contends that poor economic incentives are an important reason for the lack of new drugs and explains how the DRIVE-AB intends to change the landscape by harnessing the expertise, motivation and diversity of its partner

Quality indicators for responsible antibiotic use in the inpatient setting: a systematic review followed by an international multidisciplinary consensus procedure

Background This study was conducted as part of the Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use (DRIVE-AB) project and aimed to develop generic quality indicators (QIs) for responsible antibiotic use in the inpatient setting. Methods A RAND-modified Delphi method was applied. First, QIs were identified by a systematic review. A complementary search was performed on web sites of relevant organizations. Duplicates were removed and disease and patient-specific QIs were combined into generic indicators. The relevance of these QIs was appraised by a multidisciplinary international stakeholder panel through two questionnaires and an in-between consensus meeting. Results The systematic review retrieved 70 potential generic QIs. The QIs were appraised by 25 international stakeholders with diverse backgrounds (medical community, public health, patients, antibiotic research and development, regulators, governments). Ultimately, 51 QIs were selected in consensus. QIs with the highest relevance score included: (i) an antibiotic plan should be documented in the medical record at the start of the antibiotic treatment; (ii) the results of bacteriological susceptibility testing should be documented in the medical record; (iii) the local guidelines should correspond to the national guidelines but should be adapted based on local resistance patterns; (iv) an antibiotic stewardship programme should be in place at the healthcare facility; and (v) allergy status should be taken into account when antibiotics are prescribed. Conclusions This systematic and stepwise method combining evidence from literature and stakeholder opinion led to multidisciplinary international consensus on generic inpatient QIs that can be used globally to assess the quality of antibiotic use

Pharmacoeconomics of quetiapine for the management of acute mania in bipolar I disorder

Bipolar disorder (or manic depression) is a lifelong, severe and complex psychiatric illness characterized by recurrent episodes of depression and mania. The aim of this study is to explore the cost-effectiveness of quetiapine compared with other alternatives for the treatment of acute manic episodes in bipolar I disorder, with a specific focus on serious side effects. Four trials investigating quetiapine monotherapy and adjunctive therapy were performed to investigate the efficacy of quetiapine in patients with bipolar I disorder. Data were derived from The Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study and used to construct a study population for the model. To assess the cost-effectiveness of quetiapine in the management of acute mania in bipolar I disorders, a discrete event simulation model of seven monotherapy and combination treatment options was developed. A comparison of the total costs demonstrates that all of the monotherapy options and placebo are more costly than the combination therapy options. The combinations of lithium with risperidone (euro2365) and with olanzapine (euro2429) are estimated to be less costly per patient than the combination of lithium with quetiapine (euro2555). A group of 10,000 patients switching from olanzepine/lithium to quetiapine/lithium would involve extra costs of euro1,260,000, but would prevent an estimated number of 362 serious side effects. Switching from risperidone/lithium to quetiapine/lithium would cost an additional euro1,900,000 and would prevent 1580 serious side effects. In terms of serious side effects, the combination of lithium/quetiapine was superior to the combination of lithium with olanzapine or risperidone. It must be considered whether the decreased likelihood of developing a severe side effect is worth the extra costs incurred with the combination of quetiapine/lithium

Metrics for quantifying antibiotic use in the hospital setting : results from a systematic review and international multidisciplinary consensus procedure

Background Quantifying antibiotic use is an essential element of antibiotic stewardship since it allows comparison between different settings and time windows, and measurement of the impact of interventions. However, quantity metrics (QMs) and methods have not been standardized. Objectives To propose a set of QMs for antibiotic use in inpatients (IQMs) that are accepted globally by professionals in a range of disciplines. The study was conducted within the Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use (DRIVE-AB) project. Methods A systematic literature review using MEDLINE identified articles on measuring inpatient antibiotic use, published up to 29 January 2015. A consensually selected list of national and international web sites was screened for additional IQMs. IQMs were classified according to the type of numerator used and presented to a multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders. A RAND-modified Delphi consensus procedure, which consisted of two online questionnaires and a face-to-face meeting, was performed. Results The systematic literature review and web site search identified 168 eligible articles from which an initial list of 20 IQMs, composed of 20 different numerators and associated denominators was developed. The consensus procedure resulted in a final set of 12 IQMs. Among this final set, DDDs per 100(0) patient-days and days of therapy per patient-days were most frequently found in the review. The panel recommended that antibiotic use should be expressed in at least two metrics simultaneously. Conclusions Our consensus procedure identified a set of IQMs that we propose as an evidence-based global standard