Table 2.

Model input data for hospitalization costs, clinical outcomes and utilities associated with EPFX and vancomycin treatment. Fidaxomicin was considered more effective and less costly (‘dominant’ or cost-effective) when ICER was less than £30 000 per QALY compared with vancomycin treatment

	ICERb (£/QALY)
Parametersa	low valuec	high valuec
Hospitalization costs
vancomycin: Days 0–5	37 964	dominant
vancomycin: Days 5–10	33 878	dominant
EPFX: Days 0–5	dominant	33 327
EPFX: Days 5–10	dominant	32 833
Clinical outcomes
EPFX: clinical response (RR versus vancomycin)	36 935	dominant
EPFX: recurrence at Day 90 (RR versus vancomycin)	dominant	28 927
Vancomycin: recurrence at Day 90	19 960	dominant
Vancomycin: clinical response	2577	dominant
Vancomycin: recurrence at Day 40	dominant	dominant
Vancomycin: recurrence at Day 55	dominant	dominant
EPFX: recurrence at Day 55 (RR versus vancomycin)	dominant	dominant
EPFX: recurrence at Day 40 (RR versus vancomycin)	dominant	dominant
Utilities
initial episode: disease-free health state	dominant	dominant
first recurrence: disease-free health state	dominant	dominant
EPFX: initial episode, clinical response/Days 10–25 on treatment	dominant	dominant
EPFX: first recurrence, clinical response/Days 10–25 on treatment	dominant	dominant
second recurrence: disease-free health state	dominant	dominant

EPFX, extended-pulsed fidaxomicin; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; RR, relative risk.

^aOnly parameters that were deemed to have a key impact on the ICER are shown (absolute change >£120).

^bA threshold of £30 000 per QALY was used to interpret ICERs; ‘dominant’ indicates that EPFX was more effective and less costly than vancomycin.

^cParameters varied by ±20% of the base-case value or by using 95% CIs.