Linezolid Versus Vancomycin in the Empiric Treatment of Nosocomial Pneumonia: A Cost-Utility Analysis Incorporating Results from the ZEPHyR Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin versus linezolid in the empiric treatment of nosocomial pneumonias incorporating results from a recent prospective, double-blind, multicenter, controlled trial in adults with suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia. METHODS: A decision-analytic model examining the cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin for the empiric treatment of nosocomial pneumonia was created. Publicly available cost, efficacy, and utility data populated relevant model variables. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis varied parameters in 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations, and univariate sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of model uncertainties and the robustness of our conclusions. RESULTS: Results indicated that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) increased 6% ($22,594 vs. $23,860) by using linezolid versus vancomycin for nosocomial pneumonia. The incremental cost per QALY gained by using linezolid over vancomycin was $6,089, and the incremental cost per life saved was $68,615 with the use of linezolid. Vancomycin dominated linezolid in the subset of patients with documented MRSA. The incremental cost per QALY gained using linezolid if no mortality benefit exists between agents or a 60-day time horizon was analyzed was $19,608,688 and $443,662, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid may be a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin in the empiric treatment of patients with suspected MRSA nosocomial pneumonia; however, results of our model were highly variable on a number of important variables and assumptions including mortality differences and time frame analyzed.

Patient assistance programs: a valuable, yet imperfect, way to ease the financial toxicity of cancer care.

High out-of-pocket (OOP) spending on cancer drugs is a known contributor to "financial toxicity" among cancer patients. Many predict that this problem will only worsen as patients continue to bear more responsibility for the cost of their medical care and as the use of oral chemotherapeutic agents increases. Although foundations and pharmaceutical companies offer patient assistance programs (PAPs) to improve drug affordability, the degree to which these programs are used is poorly understood. There are several barriers to the use of PAPs that not only affect access to patients who may benefit but also create limitations on the research and study of these programs.

Adjuvant Metronomic CMF in a Contemporary Breast Cancer Cohort: What's Old Is New.

BACKGROUND: Commonly used adjuvant systemic therapies harbor high rates of severe short-term and long-term side effects but are often justified to patients because of curative intent in early-stage breast cancer. One of the oldest and least toxic adjuvant regimens, CMF (oral cyclophosphamide given with intravenous methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil), has been largely abandoned because of the perception that it underperforms for survival outcomes compared with modern regimens containing anthracycline and/or taxanes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To address this misperception, we performed a review of all consecutive breast cancer patients at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance over the past decade who received 6 months of adjuvant CMF as their sole chemotherapy regimen and determined rates for relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and major organ toxicity. From January 2003 to August 2013, 248 patients (median age of 52 years at the start of chemotherapy) met criteria for inclusion in this series and had a median follow-up of 67 months. RESULTS: RFS and OS at 5 years was 94.5% (91.3%-97.9%) and 98% (96%-100%), respectively. The only major organ toxicity that occurred in > 5% of patients was Grade 3 neutropenia (18.1%, 24 patients). One patient died during therapy from pneumocystis pneumonia attributed to previously undiagnosed AIDS. CONCLUSION: In a modern cohort of patients thoroughly characterized for Grade and hormone receptor status, CMF was a well-tolerated and effective adjuvant regimen for early-stage breast cancer and should be considered for appropriately selected patients.

Pharmacists' and pharmacy students' ability to identify drug-related problems using TIMER (Tool to Improve Medications in the Elderly via Review).

OBJECTIVE: Determine the effectiveness of TIMER (Tool to Improve Medications in the Elderly via Review) in helping pharmacists and pharmacy students identify drug-related problems during patient medication reviews. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled study design, geriatric patient cases were sent to 136 pharmacists and 108 third-year pharmacy students who were asked to identify drug related-problems (DRPs) with and without using TIMER. RESULTS: Pharmacists identified more tool-related DRPs using TIMER (p = 0.027). Pharmacy students identified more tool-related DRPs using TIMER in the first case (p = 0.02), but not in the second. CONCLUSION: TIMER increased the number of DRPs identified by practicing pharmacists and pharmacy students during medication reviews of hypothetical patient cases.