RESUMO
Objectives: To supplement the data collected in randomized clinical trials, the present study in patients with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia was conducted to explore the clinical effectiveness of linezolid and vancomycin in a routine clinical setting. Further, the overall costs of the patients' stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) were compared. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of medical and reimbursement data of adult patients who were treated for MRSA pneumonia with linezolid or vancomycin. Since the subjects were not randomly assigned to treatments, propensity score adjustment was applied to reduce a potential selection bias. Results: In total, 226 patients were included; 95 received linezolid and 131 received vancomycin as initial therapy for MRSA pneumonia. Switches to another antibiotic were observed in 4 patients (4.2%) receiving linezolid and in 23 patients (17.6%) receiving vancomycin (logistic regression analysis; odds ratio linezolid/vancomycin: 0.183; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.052-0.647; p<0.01). All-cause in-hospital mortality was also lower in patients receiving linezolid (22 patients [23.2%] vs. 54 patients [41.2%]) (logistic regression analysis; odds ratio linezolid/vancomycin: 0.351; 95% CI: 0.184-0.671; p<0.01). The analysis of the total costs of stay in ICU did not reveal any major differences between the two treatment groups (cost ratio linezolid/vancomycin: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.84-1.98; p=0.24). Conclusions: These findings confirm in a routine clinical setting that linezolid is a valuable therapeutic alternative to vancomycin for the treatment of MRSA pneumonia. However, prospective studies in real-life patient populations are warranted.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Across Europe, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is considered to be the primary cause of nosocomial pneumonia (NP). In Germany alone, approximately 14,000 cases of MRSA-associated NP occur annually, which may have a significant impact on health care resource use and associated economic costs. The objective of this study was to investigate the economic impact of linezolid compared with that of vancomycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with MRSA-confirmed NP in the German health care system. METHODS: A 4-week decision tree model incorporated published data and expert opinion on clinical parameters, resource use, and costs (2012 euros) was constructed. The base case first-line treatment duration for patients with MRSA-confirmed NP was 10 days. Treatment success (survival), failure due to lack of efficacy, serious adverse events, and mortality were possible outcomes that could impact costs. Alternate scenarios were analyzed, such as varying treatment duration (7 or 14 days) or treatment switch due to a serious adverse event/treatment failure (at day 5 or 10). RESULTS: The model calculated total base case inpatient costs of 15,116 for linezolid and 15,239 for vancomycin. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favored linezolid (versus vancomycin), with marginally lower costs (by 123) and greater efficacy (+2.7% absolute difference in the proportion of patients successfully treated for MRSA NP). Approximately 85%-87% of the total treatment costs were attributed to hospital stay (primarily in the intensive care unit). Sensitivity analysis yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: The model results show that linezolid is a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin for MRSA-confirmed NP, largely attributable to the higher clinical response rate of patients treated with linezolid.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The current healthcare climate demands pharmacoeconomic evaluations for different treatment strategies incorporating drug acquisition costs, costs incurred for hospitalisation, drug administration and preparation, diagnostic and laboratory testing and drug-related adverse events (AEs). Here we evaluate the pharmacoeconomics of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B as first-line therapies for invasive aspergillosis (IA) in patients with haematological malignancy and prolonged neutropenia or who were undergoing haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in Germany or Spain. METHODS: A decision analytic model based on a decision tree was constructed to estimate the potential treatment costs of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B. Each model pathway was defined by the probability of an event occurring and the costs of clinical outcomes. Outcome probabilities and cost inputs were derived from the published literature, clinical trials, expert panels and local database costs. In the base case, patients who failed to respond to first-line therapy were assumed to experience a single switch between comparator drugs or the other drug was added as second-line treatment. Base-case evaluation included only drug-management costs and additional hospitalisation costs due to severe AEs associated with first- and second-line therapies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Cost estimates were inflated to 2011 euros (). RESULTS: Based on clinical trial success rates of 52.8% (voriconazole) and 50.0% (liposomal amphotericin B), voriconazole had lower total treatment costs compared with liposomal amphotericin B in both Germany ( 12,256 versus 18,133; length of therapy [LOT] = 10-day intravenous [IV] + 5-day oral voriconazole and 15-day IV liposomal amphotericin B) and Spain ( 8,032 versus 10,516; LOT = 7-day IV + 8-day oral voriconazole and 15-day IV liposomal amphotericin B). Assuming the same efficacy (50.0%) in first-line therapy, voriconazole maintained a lower total treatment cost compared with liposomal amphotericin B. Cost savings were primarily due to the lower drug acquisition costs and shorter IV LOT associated with voriconazole. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were sensitive to drug price, particularly the cost of liposomal amphotericin B. CONCLUSIONS: Voriconazole is likely to be cost-saving compared with liposomal amphotericin B when used as a first-line treatment for IA in Germany and Spain.
