Utebzi / Tebipenem pivoxil for complicated urinary tract infection, including pyelonephritis

As of August 2026, MARA’s assessment finds Utebzi / Tebipenem pivoxil’s reimbursement risk concentrated in clinical effectiveness and care pathway integration, with comparator selection a strength; the current MARA Rating and full rationale are available in the report.

The assessment also weighs patient population and subgroups: how closely the trial population matches the patients who would receive the drug in practice; payers often restrict funding to the groups where the evidence is strongest. The strength recorded in comparator selection carries weight because that domain asks whether the drug was tested against the treatment payers actually fund today; a benefit shown against the wrong comparator carries little weight in a reimbursement decision.

Infectious Diseases

This rating sits within MARA’s Infectious Diseases coverage, alongside 12 other independently assessed treatments in the same area.

What payers will ask

Is the clinical benefit the kind payers reward? — Clinical effectiveness

The PIVOT-PO trial demonstrated noninferiority of tebipenem pivoxil to IV imipenem-cilastatin in terms of overall response, clinical cure, and microbiologic response. However, it did not show superiority, and the evidence is limited to noninferiority against specific comparators.

Does the economic case hold at the expected price? — Cost effectiveness

No tebipenem-specific economic model or ICER was identified, and no cost-utility analysis was presented.

Is there quality-of-life evidence payers weigh? — Quality of life

No validated HRQoL instruments or utility values were identified in the evidence package, making it not assessable.

Does the safety profile hold up for payers? — Safety and Adverse Effects

Common short-term adverse events were well characterized, with no major safety disadvantage versus IV carbapenems. However, long-term safety data is immature.

Was the drug compared against what payers expect? — Comparator Selection

Imipenem-cilastatin and ertapenem are relevant comparators for the studied population, but the evidence does not cover all real-world treatment pathways.

Is the population defined the way payers need it? — Patient Population and Subgroups

The trial population was representative in terms of age and gender, but there were significant geographic and racial representation gaps.

Does the drug fit how care is delivered and paid for? — Care Pathway Integration

The oral route offers potential integration benefits, but the trial design did not directly measure real-world pathway impacts.

Are the wider system costs understood? — Resource Use and Cost Implications

No tebipenem-specific resource use or cost data was identified, making it not assessable.

Would the evidence survive payer scrutiny? — Evidence Quality and Robustness

The evidence is based on robust phase 3 trials, but the full peer-reviewed publication of PIVOT-PO is not yet available, and external validity is limited.

How exposed is the case to uncertainty? — Uncertainty, Sensitivity, and Broader Impacts

There is high uncertainty in several clinically important subgroups and no economic sensitivity analysis due to the absence of an economic model.

Request the current rating

Be alerted when this rating changes:

Related Reimbursement Risk Assessments

Full Legal Disclaimer and Usage Terms

The MARA Rating® is an independent opinion of a drug’s market access pharma risk profile and is provided for informational purposes only—not as investment, medical, legal or any other type of advice. See our full disclaimer here.