Cost-effectiveness analysis of CTZ/TAZ for the treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Resistant bacterial infections, particularly those caused by gram-negative pathogens, are associated with high mortality and economic burdens. Ceftolozane/tazobactam demonstrated efficacy comparable to meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia in the ASPECT-NP study. One cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States revealed that ceftolozane/tazobactam was cost effective, but no Japanese studies have been conducted. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem for patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia from a health care payer perspective. METHODS: A hybrid decision-tree Markov decision-analytic model with a 5-year time horizon were developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years and to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in the treatment of patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Clinical outcomes were based on the ASPECT-NP study, costs were based on the national fee schedule of 2022, and utilities were based on published data. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also conducted to assess the robustness of our modeled estimates. RESULTS: According to our base-case analysis, compared with meropenem, ceftolozane/tazobactam increased the total costs by 424,731.22 yen (£2,626.96) and increased the quality-adjusted life-years by 0.17, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2,548,738 yen (£15,763.94) per quality-adjusted life-year gained for ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that although the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained below 5,000,000 yen (£30,925) for most of the parameters, the incremental net monetary benefit may have been less than 0 depending on the treatment efficacy outcome, especially the cure rate and mortality rate for MEPM and mortality rate for CTZ/TAZ. 53.4% of the PSA simulations demonstrated that CTZ/TAZ was more cost-effective than MEPM was. CONCLUSION: Although incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below ï¿¥5,000,000 in base-case analysis, whether ceftolozane/tazobactam is a cost-effective alternative to meropenem for ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in Japan remains uncertain. Future research should examine the unobserved heterogeneity across patient subgroups and decision-making settings, to characterise decision uncertainty and its consequences so as to assess whether additional research is required.

Cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole versus meropenem as first-line empiric therapy for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections: A study based on the in-vitro surveillance data in China.

BACKGROUND: With the increase in drug resistance rates of pathogens isolated from complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs), ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is increasingly used clinically. However, given the high drug cost and the fact that not yet covered by the health insurance payment, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole versus meropenem as a first-line empiric treatment for cIAIs from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: A decision analytic model with a one-year time horizon was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness based on the entire disease course. Model inputs were mainly obtained from clinical studies, published literature, and publicly available databases. Primary outcomes were cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years (Lys), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed. RESULTS: In the base cases, compared to meropenem, CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole had a shorter mean hospital length of stay (-0.77 days per patient) and longer life expectancy (+0.05 LYs and +0.06 QALYs). CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole had an ICER of $25517/QALY, which is well below the threshold of $31509 per QALY in China. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the change of the treatment duration of CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole was the parameter that most influenced the results of the ICER. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole was the optimal strategy in 75% of simulations at $31510/QALY threshold. CONCLUSIONS: CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole could be considered as a cost-effective option for the empiric treatment of patients with cIAIs in China, and this benefit will be more evident when the price of CAZ-AVI decreases by 23.8%.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaborem for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae-Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (CRE-KPC) infections in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of vaborem (meropenem-vaborbactam) compared to the best available therapy (BAT) in adult patients with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae-Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (CRE-KPC) infections from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS). METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis for Vaborem compared to BAT in CRE-KPC patients over a 5 year time horizon. The model structure for Vaborem simulated the clinical pathway of patients with a confirmed CRE-KPC infection. Model inputs for clinical effectiveness were sourced from the TANGO II trial, and published literature. Costs, resource use and utility values associated with CRE-KPC infections in the UK were sourced from the British National Formulary, NHS reference costs and published sources. RESULTS: Over a 5 year time horizon, Vaborem use increased total costs by £5165 and increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.366, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £14,113 per QALY gained. The ICER was most sensitive to the probability of discharge to long-term care (LTC), the annual cost of LTC and the utility of discharge to home. At thresholds of £20,000/QALY and £30,000/QALY, the probability of Vaborem being cost-effective compared to BAT was 79.85% and 94.93%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Due to a limited cost impact and increase in patient quality of life, vaborem can be considered as a cost-effective treatment option compared to BAT for adult patients with CRE-KPC infections in the UK.

Cost-utility analysis of ceftazidime-avibactam versus colistin-meropenem in the treatment of infections due to Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in Colombia.

BACKGROUND: Ceftazidime-Avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a new antimicrobial against carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. The aim of the study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI compared to colistin-meropenem (COL+MEM) in Colombia. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed from health-care system perspective assuming a 30-day time horizon. The clinical course was simulated based on treatment response between 48 and 72 hours, and the duration of the treatment was 7-14 days. Cost inputs were extracted from a published Colombian manual tariffs and official databases, expressed in 2019 dollars (USD). RESULTS: In the base case analysis, CAZ-AVI was associated with reduced mortality, length of hospital stay and fewer add-on antibiotics, resulting in an increase of 1.76 QALYs per patient versus COL+MEM and incremental costs associated in CAZ-AVI were $2,521 higher per patient compared to COL+MEM ($755 versus $3,276). The incremental costs were partially increased due to the lower mortality rate observed with CAZ-AVI. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be $3,317 per QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, with a willingness to pay above $2,438, CAZ-AVI has higher probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: CAZ-AVI demonstrates cost-effectiveness as a treatment for Carbapenem-resistant Klepsiella pneumoniae infections by reducing the number of deaths and increasing QALYs. EXPERT COMMENTARY: Previous studies and surveillance programs from Colombia have reported prevalence of pathogens and the antimicrobial susceptibility of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. The health authorities have to consider and plan adequate surveillance systems in order to predict the resistance type and in choose the optimal antibiotics when infections occur.

Comparison of two empirical prolonged infusion dosing regimens for meropenem in patients with septic shock: A two-center pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Due to high pharmacokinetic variability, standard doses of meropenem are frequently inadequate in septic patients. Therapeutic drug monitoring of meropenem is not widely available; therefore, improved empiric dosing recommendations are needed. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the attainment of pharmacologic targets for two common empirical dosing regimens for meropenem in patients with septic shock. METHODS: Two empiric dosing schemes for meropenem were compared using extended infusions (120 minutes) in 32 patients with septic shock in the intensive care units at two different hospitals. One regimen was 3 × 2 g meropenem/24 h for two days, followed by 3 × 1 g meropenem/24 h; the other regimen was 4 × 1 g meropenem/24 h. Serum meropenem concentrations were measured for the first 72 h of therapy, and pharmacokinetic modelling was performed to define the percentage of time the free drug concentration was above various target MICs for each regimen (%fT>MIC). RESULTS: Both regimens led to a sufficiently high %fT>MIC for pathogens with target MICs < 4 mg/L. When higher MICs were targeted, the %fT>MIC of 4 × 1 g meropenem decreased faster than that of 3 × 2 g meropenem. At high MICs of 32 mg/L, both dosing regimens failed to provide appropriate drug concentrations. Renal function was a significant covariate of target attainment. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study can guide clinicians in their choice of an empirical dosing regimen for meropenem. If pathogens with low MICs (< 4 mg/L) are targeted, both dosing regimens are adequate, whereas more resistant strains require higher doses.

Response of extensively drug resistant Salmonella Typhi to treatment with meropenem and azithromycin, in Pakistan.

INTRODUCTION: Salmonella Typhi is one of the leading health problems in Pakistan. With the emergence of extensively drug resistant (XDR) Salmonella Typhi, treatment options are limited. Here we report the clinical manifestations and the response to treatment of patients with XDR Typhoid fever. The patients were treated with either Meropenem or Azithromycin or a combination of both. METHODS: We reviewed the records of culture confirmed XDR typhoid who visited Aga Khan University Hospital (AKUH), Karachi and Aga Khan Secondary Care Hospital, Hyderabad from April 2017 to June 2018. Symptoms developed during disease, unplanned treatment extension and complications developed while on antimicrobials was recorded. Means with standard deviation were calculated for duration of treatment, time to defervescence, and cost of treatment. RESULTS: Records of 81 culture confirmed XDR typhoid patients admitted at the AKU hospitals were reviewed. Most, (n = 45; 56%) were male. Mean age of the cases was 8.03 years with range (1-40). About three quarter (n = 66) of the patients were treated as inpatient. Fever and vomiting were the most common symptoms at the time of presentation. Oral azithromycin alone (n = 22; 27%), intravenous meropenem alone (n = 20; 25%), or a combination of azithromycin and meropenem (n = 39; 48%) were the options used for treatment. Average (95% confidence interval) time to defervescence was 7.1(5.5-8.6), 6.7(4.7-8.7), and 6.7(5.5-7.9) days for each treatment option respectively whereas there were 1,0 and 3 treatment failures in each treatment option respectively. Average cost of treatment per day for azithromycin was US$5.87 whereas it was US$88.46 for meropenem. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with either Azithromycin, Meropenem alone or in combination showed similar time to defervescence. Because of the lower cost of azithromycin, it is preferable in lower socio-economic areas. Background estimates for power calculation can be made for more robust clinical trials using this observational data.

Informe diário de evidências COVID-19: busca realizada em 11 de agosto de 2020 / COVID-19 daily evidence report: search conducted on August 11, 2020

O Informe Diário de Evidências é uma produção do Ministério da Saúde que tem como objetivo acompanhar diariamente as publicações científicas sobre tratamento farmacológico e vacinas para a COVID-19. Dessa forma, são realizadas buscas estruturadas em bases de dados biomédicas, referentes ao dia anterior desse informe. Não são incluídos estudos pré-clínicos (in vitro, in vivo, in silico). A frequência dos estudos é demonstrada de acordo com a sua classificação metodológica (revisões sistemáticas, ensaios clínicos randomizados, coortes, entre outros). Para cada estudo é apresentado um resumo com avaliação da qualidade metodológica. Essa avaliação tem por finalidade identificar o grau de certeza/confiança ou o risco de viés de cada estudo. Para tal, são utilizadas ferramentas já validadas e consagradas na literatura científica, na área de saúde baseada em evidências. Cabe ressaltar que o documento tem caráter informativo e não representa uma recomendação oficial do Ministério da Saúde sobre a temática. Foram encontrados 14 artigos e 5 protocolos.

What is the optimal loading dose of broad-spectrum ß-lactam antibiotics in septic patients? Results from pharmacokinetic simulation modelling.

Optimal loading doses of ß-lactams to rapidly achieve adequate drug concentrations in critically ill patients are unknown. This was a post-hoc analysis of a prospective study that evaluated broad-spectrum ß-lactams [piperacillin (PIP), ceftazidime (CAZ), cefepime (FEP) and meropenem (MEM)] pharmacokinetics (PKs) in patients with sepsis or septic shock (n = 88). Monte Carlo simulation was performed for 1000 virtual patients using specific sets of covariates for various dosing regimens and different durations of administration. Pharmacodynamic (PD) targets were considered as drug concentrations exceeding at least 50% of time above four times the minimum inhibitory concentration (T>4 × MIC) of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, according to EUCAST criteria, for PIP, 70%T>4 × MIC for CAZ and FEP and 40%T>4 × MIC for MEM. The probability of target attainment (PTA) was derived by calculating the percentage of patients who attained the PK/PD target at each MIC. The optimal loading dose was defined as the one associated with a ≥90% probability to achieve the PD targets. Our simulation model identified an optimal loading dose for PIP of 8 g given as a 3-h infusion (PTA of 96.2%), for CAZ and FEP of 4 g given as a 3-h infusion (PTA of 96.5% and 98.4%, respectively), and for MEM of 2 g given as a 30-min infusion (PTA of 93.4%), with the following antibiotic dose administered 6 h thereafter regardless of the drug. A higher first dose of broad-spectrum ß-lactams should be given to adequately treat less-susceptible pathogens in septic patients. These findings need to be validated in a prospective study.

Informe diário de evidências COVID-19: busca realizada em 17 de julho de 2020 / COVID-19 daily evidence report: search conducted on July 17, 2020

O Informe Diário de Evidências é uma produção do Ministério da Saúde que tem como objetivo acompanhar diariamente as publicações científicas sobre tratamento farmacológico e vacinas para a COVID-19. Dessa forma, são realizadas buscas estruturadas em bases de dados biomédicas, referentes ao dia anterior desse informe. Não são incluídos estudos pré-clínicos (in vitro, in vivo, in silico). A frequência dos estudos é demonstrada de acordo com a sua classificação metodológica (revisões sistemáticas, ensaios clínicos randomizados, coortes, entre outros). Para cada estudo é apresentado um resumo com avaliação da qualidade metodológica. Essa avaliação tem por finalidade identificar o grau de certeza/confiança ou o risco de viés de cada estudo. Para tal, são utilizadas ferramentas já validadas e consagradas na literatura científica, na área de saúde baseada em evidências. Cabe ressaltar que o documento tem caráter informativo e não representa uma recomendação oficial do Ministério da Saúde sobre a temática. Foram encontrados 14 artigos e 13 protocolos.

The cost-effectiveness of empirical antibiotic treatments for high-risk febrile neutropenic patients: A decision analytic model.

PURPOSE: Febrile neutropenia has a significant clinical and economic impact on cancer patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of different current empiric antibiotic treatments. METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed to compare the use of cefepime, meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, and piperacillin/tazobactam for treatment of high-risk patients. The analysis was performed from the perspective of U.S.-based hospitals. The time horizon was defined to be a single febrile neutropenia episode. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating costs and deaths averted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP), were used to address the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The base-case analysis results showed that treatments were equally effective but differed mainly in their cost. In increasing order: treatment with imipenem/cilastatin cost $52,647, cefepime $57,270, piperacillin/tazobactam $57,277, and meropenem $63,778. In the probabilistic analysis, mean costs were $52,554 (CI: $52,242-$52,866) for imipenem/cilastatin, $57,272 (CI: $56,951-$57,593) for cefepime, $57,294 (CI: $56,978-$57,611) for piperacillin/tazobactam, and $63,690 (CI: $63,370-$64,009) for meropenem. Furthermore, with a WTP set at $0 to $50,000, imipenem/cilastatin was cost-effective in 66.2% to 66.3% of simulations compared to all other high-risk options. DISCUSSION: Imipenem/cilastatin is a cost-effective strategy and results in considerable health care cost-savings at various WTP thresholds. Cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to differentiate the treatments of febrile neutropenia in high-risk patients.

Cost-effectiveness Comparison of Ceftazidime/Avibactam Versus Meropenem in the Empirical Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-associated Pneumonia, in Italy.

PURPOSE: Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a fixed-dose combination antibiotic approved in Europe and the United States for patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). The economic benefits of a new drug such as CAZ-AVI are required to be assessed against those of available comparators, from the perspective of health care providers and payers, through cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. The objective of this analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of appropriate hospitalized patients with HAP/VAP caused by gram-negative pathogens, from the perspective of publicly funded health care in Italy (third-party perspective, based on the data from the REPROVE (Ceftazidime-Avibactam Versus Meropenem In Nosocomial Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia) clinical study; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01808092). METHODS: A patient-level, sequential simulation model of the HAP/VAP clinical course was developed using spreadsheet software. The analysis focused on direct medical costs. The time horizon of the model selected was 5 years, with an annual discount rate of 3% on costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Clinical inputs for treatment comparisons were mainly obtained from the REPROVE clinical study data. In addition to clinical outcomes observed in the trial, the model incorporated impact of resistance pathogens, based on data from published studies and expert opinion. Certain assumptions were made for some model parameters due to a lack of data. FINDINGS: The analysis demonstrated that the intervention sequence (CAZ-AVI followed by colistin + high-dose meropenem) versus the comparator sequence (meropenem followed by colistin + high-dose meropenem) provided a better clinical cure rate (+13.52%), which led to a shorter hospital stay (-0.40 days per patient), and gains in the number of life-years (+0.195) and QALYs (+0.350) per patient. The intervention sequence had an estimated net incremental total cost of €1254 ($1401) per patient, and the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €3581 ($4000) per QALY gained, well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 ($33,507) per QALY in Italy. IMPLICATIONS: The model results showed that CAZ-AVI is expected to provide clinical benefits in hospitalized patients with HAP/VAP in Italy at an acceptable cost compared to meropenem.

Effect of a "handshake" stewardship program versus a formulary restriction policy on High-End antibiotic use, expenditure, antibiotic resistance, and patient outcome.

This study reports the effect of implementing an antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) based on the "handshake" strategy for 2 years on multiple endpoints compared with that in a preceding period when an antimicrobial restriction policy was only applied in the absence of a complete program in a tertiary-care Lebanese hospital. The studied endpoints were broad-spectrum antibiotic consumption, antibiotic expenditure, nosocomial bacteremia incidence rate, and patient outcome.An interrupted time series analysis was undertaken to assess the changes in the trend (ΔT) and level (ΔL) of the aforementioned endpoints among adult inpatients before (October 2013 to September 2015) and after the introduction of the ASP (October 2016 to September 2018).After the implementation of the "handshake" ASP, marked changes were observed in the consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics. The mean use density levels for imipenem and meropenem decreased by 13.72% (P = 0.017), coupled with a decreasing rate of prescription (ΔT = -24.83 defined daily dose [DDD]/1,000 patient days [PD]/month; P = 0.02). Tigecycline use significantly decreased in level by 69.19% (P < 0.0001) and in trend (ΔT = -25.63 DDD/1,000 PD/month; P < 0.0001). A reduction in the use of colistin was also documented but did not reach statistical significance (ΔL = -8.71%, P = 0.56; ΔT = -5.51 DDD/1,000 PD/month = -5.5; P = 0.67). Antibiotic costs decreased by 24.6% after ASP implementation (P < 0.0001), and there was a distinct change from an increasing rate to a decreasing rate of expenditure (ΔT = -12.19 US dollars/PD/month; P = 0.002). The incidence rate of nosocomial bacteremia caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (CRGNB) decreased by 34.84% (P = 0.13) coupled with a decreasing trend (ΔT = -0.23 cases/1,000 PD/month, P = 0.08). Specifically, a noticeable reduction in the incidence rate of bacteremia due to carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii was documented (ΔL = -54.34%, P = 0.01; ΔT = -0.24 cases/1000 PD/month, P = 0.01). Regarding patient outcome, all-cause mortality rates did not increase in level or in rate (ΔL = -3.55%, P = 0.59; ΔT = -0.29 deaths/1000 PD/month, P = 0.6). The length of stay and 7-day readmission rate remained stable between the two periods.In conclusion, the "handshake" ASP succeeded in controlling the prescription rates of antibiotics and in decreasing the nosocomial bacteremia rates caused by CRGNB without compromising patient outcome in our facility. It also had an economic effect in reducing antibiotic costs compared with the previous restriction policy on antimicrobial dispensing.

Antimicrobial prescription patterns in a tertiary-care pediatric unit in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is one of the greatest public health threats worldwide. The improper prescription of antibiotics is one factor that promotes antibiotic resistance. Access to antimicrobial surveillance data is essential when assessing the pattern and appropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions in hospitals and for the establishment of an antimicrobial stewardship program. This study aimed to describe the rate of antimicrobial use and the pattern of prescriptions in a tertiary care pediatric unit in Thailand. METHODS: A point prevalence survey on antimicrobial use was conducted monthly between January and June 2016, using standardized tools. The survey included all inpatient pediatric beds and identified all children receiving antimicrobial treatment on the day of the survey. RESULTS: The study included 644 children, 43.3% of whom received antimicrobial treatment during hospitalization. In general wards, the rate of antimicrobial prescriptions was 37.2%; in oncology wards it was 47.0%; in intensive care units it was 38.7%, and in surgical wards it was 67.7%. Meropenem was the most prescribed antimicrobial in the general wards (24.5%) and intensive care units (28.6%), whereas antipseudomonas was the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial in the oncology ward (26.6%). For the surgical ward, the most prescribed antimicrobial was third-generation cephalosporin for both prophylaxis and treatment (39.0%). The most common reason for antimicrobial use was the treatment of infections. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of hospitalized children received at least one antimicrobial. This was comparable with other pediatric tertiary care centers, although the high use of meropenem was different. This study provides important baseline information on antimicrobial use in a large tertiary-care pediatric unit and could lead to a nationwide survey in the future.

Impact of SEP-1 on broad-spectrum combination antibiotic therapy in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The SEP-1 measures have tied financial reimbursement to the treatment of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of a SEP-1 initiative on the utilization of broad-spectrum combination therapy (BSCT) in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was an IRB-approved, retrospective evaluation of adult patients who received vancomycin plus an antipseudomonal beta-lactam for a urinary tract infection (UTI) or skin or soft tissue infection (SSTI) in the ED. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in which use of BSCT was considered appropriate based on clinical criteria. Secondary outcomes included door to antibiotic order time, door to administration time, proportion of patients continued on BSCT upon admission, duration of BSCT, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients were included in the analysis. Following SEP-1 implementation, appropriate use of BSCT decreased by 12%, with 54% of patients in the pre-SEP-1 group meeting clinical criteria compared to 42% in the post-SEP-1 group (p = 0.028). In the subgroup of patients with a suspected UTI the appropriate use of BSCT declined by 25% (40% vs 15%, p = 0.005). The median door to first antibiotic administration time was not significantly different between groups (63 min vs 61 min, p = 0.091). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the SEP-1 mandated measures was associated with an increase in the unnecessary use of BSCT. Additionally, no difference was seen in time to antibiotic administration. The results of this study demonstrate the negative impact that the SEP-1 mandate may have on antimicrobial utilization within the ED.

Assessment of mortality stratified by meropenem minimum inhibitory concentration in patients with Enterobacteriaceae bacteraemia: A patient-level analysis of published data.

In 2010, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) lowered carbapenem breakpoints to reduce the proportion of 'susceptible' organisms that produced carbapenemases. Few studies have evaluated the effect of this change on clinical outcomes. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effect of carbapenem MICs on 30-day mortality from pooled patient-level data from studies of patients treated with carbapenems across a range of meropenem MICs. PubMed was searched to March 2019 with the terms 'carbapenem', 'meropenem', 'imipenem', 'doripenem', 'ertapenem', 'susceptibility' and 'outcomes'. Studies were included in the analysis if patients had Enterobacteriaceae bacteraemia treated with a carbapenem for ≥48 h and mortality was reported. Studies were excluded if all isolates were either susceptible or resistant to meropenem based on CLSI 2010 breakpoints or if only carbapenemase-producing isolates were included. Authors were contacted for patient-level data. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, with planned subset analyses of patients treated with meropenem, receiving active combination therapy, treated in the ICU or infected with Klebsiella pneumoniae. Of 157 articles identified, 4 met the inclusion criteria (115 eligible patients). The odds of mortality increased with each increasing meropenem MIC dilution (OR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.06-2.15) as a continuous variable. A similar increase in odds was observed in patients treated with meropenem, treated in the ICU, infected with K. pneumoniae or receiving no other active antimicrobials. Increasing meropenem MICs in Enterobacteriaceae were associated with increased mortality; however, more work is needed to define optimal clinical decision rules for infections within the susceptible range.

Clinical and economic impact of generic versus brand name meropenem use in an intensive care unit in Colombia

Abstract Background: Recent studies suggest that sustained use of generic antibiotics may be associated with clinical failure and emergence of antibacterial resistance. The present study was designed to determine the clinical outcome between the use of generic meropenem (GM) and brand-name meropenem (BNM). Additionally, this study evaluated the economic impact of GM and BNM to determine if the former represents a cost-effective alternative to the latter. Methods: Patients treated between January 2011 and May 2014 received GM while patients treated between June 2014 and March 2017 received BNM. Mortality was compared between groups. Total infection cost was defined by the cost of antimicrobial consumption, length of stay, and laboratory and imaging exams until infection resolution. Findings: A total of 168 patients were included; survival rate for the 68 patients treated with GM was 38% compared to 59% in the patients treated with BNM. Multivariate analysis showed that the variables most strongly-associated with mortality were cardiovascular disease (OR 18.18, 95% CI 1.25-262.3, p = 0.033) and treatment with generic meropenem (OR 18.45, 95% CI 1.45-232.32, p = 0.024). On the other hand, total infection cost did not show a significant difference between groups (BNM $10,771 vs. GM $11,343; p = 0.91). Interpretation: The present study suggests that patients treated with GM have a risk of death 18 times higher compared to those treated with BNM. Furthermore, economic analysis shows that GM is not more cost effective than BNM. Summary: More studies measuring clinical outcomes are needed to confirm the clinical equivalence of brand-name versus generic antibiotics, not only for meropenem but also for other molecules.

Clinical and economic impact of generic versus brand name meropenem use in an intensive care unit in Colombia.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that sustained use of generic antibiotics may be associated with clinical failure and emergence of antibacterial resistance. The present study was designed to determine the clinical outcome between the use of generic meropenem (GM) and brand-name meropenem (BNM). Additionally, this study evaluated the economic impact of GM and BNM to determine if the former represents a cost-effective alternative to the latter. METHODS: Patients treated between January 2011 and May 2014 received GM while patients treated between June 2014 and March 2017 received BNM. Mortality was compared between groups. Total infection cost was defined by the cost of antimicrobial consumption, length of stay, and laboratory and imaging exams until infection resolution. FINDINGS: A total of 168 patients were included; survival rate for the 68 patients treated with GM was 38% compared to 59% in the patients treated with BNM. Multivariate analysis showed that the variables most strongly-associated with mortality were cardiovascular disease (OR 18.18, 95% CI 1.25-262.3, p = 0.033) and treatment with generic meropenem (OR 18.45, 95% CI 1.45-232.32, p = 0.024). On the other hand, total infection cost did not show a significant difference between groups (BNM $10,771 vs. GM $11,343; p = 0.91). INTERPRETATION: The present study suggests that patients treated with GM have a risk of death 18 times higher compared to those treated with BNM. Furthermore, economic analysis shows that GM is not more cost effective than BNM. SUMMARY: More studies measuring clinical outcomes are needed to confirm the clinical equivalence of brand-name versus generic antibiotics, not only for meropenem but also for other molecules.

Clinical cure rate and cost-effectiveness of carbapenem-sparing beta-lactams vs. meropenem for Gram-negative infections: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis.

The increasing incidence of infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)/AmpC-producing bacteria leads to increasing use of carbapenems and risk of carbapenem resistance. Treatment success of carbapenem-sparing beta-lactams (CSBs) for ESBL infections is unclear. The aim of this study was to appraise the clinical cure rate and estimate the cost-effectiveness of meropenem vs. CSBs (piperacillin-tazobactam, temocillin, ceftazidime-avibactam, and ceftolozane-tazobactam) for urinary tract infections (UTIs) or intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) due to ESBL/AmpC-producing bacteria. A systematic literature search of the Cochrane library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies assessing the clinical cure rate of the antibiotics. To assess the cost-effectiveness of CSBs vs. meropenem, a combined decision analytic and Markov model was probabilistically analysed over a 5-year period. The main outcome was presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and evaluated with a threshold of €20 000 per life year gained (LYG). From 656 identified articles, 17 and 14 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and quantitative synthesis, respectively. A clinical cure of ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam was comparable to meropenem in patients with complicated IAIs (cIAIs) due to ESBL (Risk ratio [RR]=1·04, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0·95-1·13). Both temocillin and ceftolozane-tazobactam were deemed cost-effective compared to meropenem with €157·58 and €13 398·34 per LYG, respectively, in patients with UTIs due to ESBL. However, only ceftazidime-avibactam (plus metronidazole) was cost-effective for the treatment of IAIs, with €16 916·77 per LYG. These results show that several CSBs can be considered as viable candidates for the treatment of UTIs and IAIs caused by ESBL.

Meropenem antimicrobial stewardship program: clinical, economic, and antibiotic resistance impact.

There are few prospective studies with sufficient duration in time to evaluate clinical and antibiotic resistance impact of antibiotic stewardship programs (ASP). This is a descriptive study between January 2012 and December 2017, pre-post intervention. A meropenem ASP was initiated in January 2015; in patients who started treatment with meropenem, an infectious disease physician performed treatment recommendations to prescribers. Prospective information was collected to evaluate adequacy of meropenem prescription to local guidelines and to compare results between cases with accepted or rejected intervention. Analysis was performed to verify variables associated with intervention acceptance and with any significant change in meropenem consumption, hospital-acquired multidrug-resistant (MDR) bloodstream infections (BSIs), and 30-day all-cause crude death in MDR BSIs. Adequacy of meropenem prescription and de-escalation from meropenem treatment to narrower-spectrum antibiotic improved progressively over time, after ASP implementation (p < 0.001). Interventions on prescription were performed in 330 (38.7%) patients without meropenem justified treatment; in 269, intervention was accepted and in 61 not. Intervention acceptance was associated with shorter duration of treatment, cost, and inpatient days (p < 0.05); intervention rejection was not associated with severity of patient. During the period 2015-2017, meropenem consumption decreased compared with 2012-2014 (rate ratio [RR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.58-0.77, p < 0.001). Also decreased were hospital-acquired MDR BSI rate (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.38-1.02, p = 0,048) and 30-day all-cause crude death in MDR BSIs (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14-1.24, p = 0.096), coinciding in time with ASP start-up. The decrease and better use of meropenem achieved had a sustained clinical, economic, and ecological impact, reducing costs and mortality of hospital-acquired MDR BSIs.