Comparative healthcare-associated costs of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia-infective endocarditis treated with either daptomycin or vancomycin.

Complex infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is associated with high healthcare and societal costs; thus, evaluation of the costs and health benefits of interventions is an important consideration in a modern healthcare system. This study estimated the cost consequences of the use of daptomycin compared with vancomycin for the first-line treatment of patients with proven MRSA-induced bacteraemia-infective endocarditis (SAB-IE) with a vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) >1mg/L in the UK. A decision model was developed to assess total healthcare costs of treatment, including inpatient, outpatient and drug costs. Data were sourced from the literature (treatment efficacy and safety), a physician survey (resource use) and publicly available databases (unit costs). Assuming the same length of stay for daptomycin and vancomycin, the total healthcare costs per patient were £17917 for daptomycin and £17165 for vancomycin. However, extrapolating from published studies and supported by a physician survey, daptomycin was found to require fewer therapeutic switches and a shorter length of stay. When the length of stay was reduced from 42 days to 28 days, daptomycin saved £4037 per person compared with vancomycin. In conclusion, daptomycin is an effective and efficient alternative antibiotic for the treatment of SAB-IE. However, the level of cost saving depends on the extent to which local clinical practice allows early discharge of patients before the end of their antibiotic course when responding to treatment.

Implementing an intensified antibiotic stewardship programme targeting daptomycin use in orthopaedic surgery: a cost-benefit analysis from the hospital perspective.

BACKGROUND: Hospital antibiotic stewardship (ABS) programmes offer several evidence-based tools to control prescription rates of antibiotics in different settings, influence the incidence of nosocomial infections and to contain the development of multi-drug-resistant bacteria. In the context of endoprosthetic surgery, however, knowledge of core antibiotic stewardship strategies, comparisons of costs and benefits of hospital ABS programmes are still lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified a high daptomycin use for the treatment of methicillin-sensitive staphylococcal infections as a potential target for our ABS intervention. In addition, we endorsed periprosthetic tissue cultures for the diagnosis of PJI. Monthly antibiotic use data were obtained from the hospital pharmacy and were expressed as WHO-ATC defined daily doses (DDD) and dose definitions adapted to local guidelines (recommended daily doses, RDD), normalized per 1000 patient days. The pre-intervention period was defined from February 2012 through January 2014 (24 months). The post-intervention period included monthly time points from February 2014 to April 2015 (15 months). For a basic cost-benefit analysis from the hospital perspective, three cost drivers were taken into account: (1) the cost savings due to changes in antimicrobial prescribing; (2) costs associated with the increase in the number of cultured tissue samples, and (3) the appointment of an infectious disease consultant. Interrupted time-series analysis (ITS) was applied. RESULTS: Descriptive analysis of the usage data showed a decline in overall use of anti-infective substances in the post-intervention period (334.9 vs. 221.4 RDDs/1000 patient days). The drug use density of daptomycin dropped by -75 % (51.7 vs. 12.9 RDD/1000 patient days), whereas the utilization of narrow-spectrum penicillins, in particular flucloxacillin, increased from 13.8 to 33.6 RDDs/1000 patient days. ITS analysis of the consumption dataset showed significant level changes for overall prescriptions, as well as for daptomycin (p < 0.001) and for narrow-spectrum penicillins (p = 0.001). The total costs of antibiotic consumption decreased by an estimated € 4563 per month (p < 0.001), and around 90 % of these savings were linked to a decrease in daptomycin consumption. Overall, the antibiotic stewardship programme was beneficial, as monthly cost savings of € 2575 (p = 0.005) were achieved. INTERPRETATION: In this example of large endoprosthetic surgery department in a community-based hospital, the applied hospital ABS programme targeting daptomycin use has shown to be feasible, effective and beneficial compared to no intervention.

An open-label, pragmatic, randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of daptomycin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) places a tremendous burden on the health care system. Understanding relative resource utilization associated with different antimicrobials is important for decision making by patients, health care providers, and payers. METHODS: The authors conducted an open-label, pragmatic, randomized (1:1) clinical study (N = 250) to compare the effectiveness of daptomycin with that of vancomycin for treatment of patients hospitalized with cSSSI caused by suspected or documented methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. The primary study end point was infection-related length of stay (IRLOS). Secondary end points included health care resource utilization, cost, clinical response, and patient-reported outcomes. Patient assessments were performed daily until the end of antibiotic therapy or until hospital discharge, and at 14 days and 30 days after discharge. RESULTS: No difference was found for IRLOS, total LOS, and total inpatient cost between cohorts. Hospital LOS contributed 85.9% to the total hospitalization cost, compared with 6.4% for drug costs. Daptomycin showed a nonsignificant trend toward a higher clinical success rate, compared with vancomycin, at treatment days 2 and 3. In the multivariate analyses, vancomycin was associated with a lower likelihood of day 2 clinical success (odds ratio [OR] = 0.498, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.249-0.997; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study did not provide conclusive evidence of the superiority of one treatment over the other in terms of clinical, economic, or patient outcomes. The data suggest that physician and patient preference, rather than drug acquisition cost, should be the primary driver of initial antibiotic selection for hospitalized patients with cSSSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01419184 (Date: August 16, 2011).

Evaluation of the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia.

BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infections are a leading cause of death in the United States. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) encompasses >50% of all S aureus strains in infected hospitalized patients and increases mortality, length of stay and healthcare costs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the treatment of MRSA bacteremia with daptomycin, linezolid and vancomycin. METHODS: Patients with MRSA bacteremia between June 2008 and November 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. A microbiology laboratory report identified patients with ≥ 1 positive MRSA blood culture. Patients ≥ 18 years receiving daptomycin, linezolid or vancomycin for ≥ 7 consecutive days were included. Polymicrobial blood cultures and patients treated concomitantly with >1 anti-MRSA agent were excluded. RESULTS: Of 122 patients included, 53 received daptomycin, 15 received linezolid and 54 received vancomycin. Clinical and microbiologic cure rates were similar between daptomycin, linezolid and vancomycin (58.5% versus 60% versus 61.1%; 93.6% versus 100% versus 90%, respectively). Thirteen patients (daptomycin 4/24 versus linezolid 1/9 versus vancomycin 8/49, P = 0.5960) had recurrence while 12 patients had re-infection (daptomycin 5/42 versus linezolid 0/9 versus vancomycin 7/49, P = 0.4755). Treatment failure occurred in 11 patients treated with daptomycin, 4 with linezolid and 9 with vancomycin (P = 0.662). Compared with daptomycin and vancomycin, linezolid-treated patients had higher mortality (P = 0.0186). CONCLUSIONS: No difference in clinical or microbiologic cure rates was observed between groups. Daptomycin and vancomycin appear equally efficacious for MRSA bacteremia, whereas linezolid therapy was associated with higher mortality.

Modeling economic implications of alternative treatment strategies for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.

OBJECTIVE: The economic implications from the US Medicare perspective of adopting alternative treatment strategies for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) are substantial. The objective of this study is to describe a modeling framework that explores the impact of decisions related to both the location of care and switching to different antibiotics at discharge. METHODS: A discrete event simulation (DES) was developed to model the treatment pathway of each patient through various locations (emergency department [ED], inpatient, and outpatient) and the treatments prescribed (empiric antibiotic, switching to a different antibiotic at discharge, or a second antibiotic). Costs are reported in 2012 USD. RESULTS: The mean number of days on antibiotic in a cohort assigned to a full course of vancomycin was 11.2 days, with 64% of the treatment course being administered in the outpatient setting. Mean total costs per patient were $8671, with inpatient care accounting for 58% of the costs accrued. The majority of outpatient costs were associated with parenteral administration rather than drug acquisition or monitoring. Scenarios modifying the treatment pathway to increase the proportion of patients receiving the first dose in the ED, and then managing them in the outpatient setting or prescribing an oral antibiotic at discharge to avoid the cost associated with administering parenteral therapy, therefore have a major impact and lower the typical cost per patient by 11-20%. Since vancomycin is commonly used as empiric therapy in clinical practice, based on these analyses, a shift in treatment practice could result in substantial savings from the Medicare perspective. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of antibiotic and location of care influence the costs and resource use associated with the management of ABSSSIs. The DES framework presented here can provide insight into the potential economic implications of decisions that modify the treatment pathway.

Impact of different antimicrobial therapies on clinical and fiscal outcomes of patients with bacteremia due to vancomycin-resistant enterococci.

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are a growing health problem, and uncertainties exist regarding the optimal therapy for bloodstream infection due to VRE. We conducted systematic comparative evaluations of the impact of different antimicrobial therapies on the outcomes of patients with bloodstream infections due to VRE. A retrospective study from January 2008 to October 2010 was conducted at Detroit Medical Center. Unique patients with blood cultures due to VRE were included and reviewed. Three major therapeutic classes were analyzed: daptomycin, linezolid, and ß-lactams. Three multivariate models were conducted for each outcome, matching for a propensity score predicting the likelihood of receipt of one of the therapeutic classes. A total of 225 cases of bacteremia due to VRE were included, including 86 (38.2%) cases of VR Enterococcus faecalis and 139 (61.8%) of VR Enterococcus faecium. Bacteremia due to VR E. faecalis was more frequent among subjects treated with ß-lactams than among those treated with daptomycin or linezolid. The median dose of daptomycin was 6 mg/kg of body weight (range, 6 to 12 mg/kg). After controlling for propensity score and bacteremia due to VR E. faecalis, differences in mortality were nonsignificant among the treatment groups. Therapy with daptomycin was associated with higher median variable direct cost per day than that for linezolid. This large study revealed the three therapeutic classes (daptomycin, linezolid, and ß-lactams) are similarly efficacious in the treatment of bacteremia due to susceptible strains of VRE.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of alternative empiric antimicrobial treatment options for suspected enterococcal bacteremia.

OBJECTIVES: Enterococcus species are the fourth leading cause of bacteremia. Resistance rates are rising and delays in appropriate initial antimicrobial therapy have been associated with increased mortality. Empiric treatment of patients with suspected enterococcal bacteremia varies and significant cost differences exist between alternatives. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of various empiric treatments for patients with suspected enterococcal bacteremia. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed from the hospital perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative empiric treatment options for enterococcal bacteremia, including antimicrobials active against vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE). The model was populated from available literature sources and included resistance patterns, associated mortality with early versus delayed effective treatment, and the cost of treatment. Univariate sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model to determine the degree to which model uncertainties influenced outcomes. We also undertook a probabilistic sensitivity analysis varying parameters in 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. MAIN RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $791 and $749/quality-adjusted-life-year utilizing empiric daptomycin and linezolid, respectively. The model also predicted an incremental cost/life saved of $11,703 by utilizing empiric daptomycin and $11,084 with linezolid utilization. Ampicillin was dominated (i.e., less effective and associated with increased costs) by both VRE-active agents and vancomycin. A probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis showed that an agent with VRE activity had a 100% chance of being cost-effective at traditionally used willingness-to-pay thresholds. The decision-analytic model was sensitive to variations in E. faecium mortality and short-term postdischarge survival rates. CONCLUSION: Results of our model showed that empiric utilization of an antimicrobial with activity against VRE may be a cost-effective option for the treatment of suspected enterococcal bacteremia when compared with vancomycin or ß-lactam therapy.

Treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections with a minimal inhibitory concentration of 2 µg/mL to vancomycin: old (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) versus new (daptomycin or linezolid) agents.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that agents other than vancomycin be considered for some types of infection due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) when the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) to vancomycin is 2 µg/mL or more. Alternative therapeutic options include daptomycin and linezolid, 2 relatively new and expensive drugs, and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX), an old and inexpensive agent. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and potential cost savings associated with use of TMP/SMX compared to linezolid and daptomycin. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted at Detroit Medical Center. For calendar year 2009, unique adults (age >18 years) with infections due to MRSA with an MIC to vancomycin of 2 µg/mL were included if they received 2 or more doses of TMP/SMX and/or daptomycin and/or linezolid. Data were abstracted from patient charts and pharmacy records. RESULTS: There were 328 patients included in the study cohort: 143 received TMP/SMX alone, 89 received daptomycin alone, 75 received linezolid alone, and 21 patients received a combination of 2 or more of these agents. In univariate analysis, patients who received TMP/SMX alone had significantly better outcomes, including in-hospital (p = 0.003) and 90-day mortality (p < 0.001) compared to patients treated with daptomycin or linezolid. Patients receiving TMP/SMX were also younger (p < 0.001), had fewer comorbid conditions (p < 0.001), had less severe acute severity of illness (p < 0.001), and received appropriate therapy more rapidly (p = 0.001). In multivariate models the association between TMP/SMX treatment and mortality was no longer significant. Antimicrobial cost savings associated with using TMP/SMX averaged $2067.40 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: TMP/SMX monotherapy compared favorably to linezolid and daptomycin in terms of treatment efficacy and mortality. Use of TMP/SMX instead of linezolid or daptomycin could potentially significantly reduce antibiotic costs. TMP/SMX should be considered for the treatment of MRSA infection with MIC of 2 µg/mL to vancomycin.

[Pharmacoeconomic analysis of the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with daptomycin or vancomycin]. / Análisis farmacoeconómico del tratamiento de la bacteriemia por Staphylococcus aureus resistente a meticilina con daptomicina y vancomicina.

INTRODUCTION: The increased morbidity, mortality and high costs associated with bacteremia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a major public health problem. Pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed to compare the efficiency of daptomycin (DAP) against vancomycin (VAN) in the treatment of this infection. METHODS: Retrospective, deterministic and probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis. The effectiveness of the treatments was estimated from the results of a randomized clinical trial, which compared DAP (6 mg / kg IV daily) and VAN (1 g IV every 12 hours), both with or without gentamicin (1 mg / kg IV every 8 hours). Resource utilization was estimated from the clinical trial of the drug datasheets and Spanish sources, the unit costs were obtained also from Spanish sources. Monte Carlo probabilistic analysis and deterministic analysis were performed. RESULTS: The clinical trial cure rates were higher with DAP (44.4%, 95% CI 43.5 to 45.4%) than with VAN (31.8%, 95% CI 30.9 to 32.7%) not statistically significant (p = 0.2203) but with economic impact. With DAP would occur less costs due to treatment failure (rescue antibiotics, additional tests, prolonged hospital stay and adverse reactions) than with VAN. In the base case the average cost of disease per patient was € 12,329 to € 12,696 with DAP and VAN (difference of 367 €). DAP treatment was dominant (more effective, with lower costs than VAN) both in the deterministic and probabilistic analysis. In the Monte Carlo simulation, DAP was the most cost-effective treatment in 100% of the 10,000 simulations, for a willingness to pay € 12,000 per additional cure (approximate cost of MRSA bacteraemia episode). CONCLUSIONS: According to this model, daptomycin is more cost-effective than vancomycin in treating MRSA bacteremia. The higher cost of acquisition of daptomycin does not imply a higher cost of treating this infection.

[Pharmacoeconomic assessment of daptomycin as first-line therapy for bacteraemia and complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive pathogens in Spain]. / Evaluación farmacoeconómica de daptomicina como terapia de primera línea en el tratamiento de bacteriemia e infecciones complicadas de piel y tejidos blandos causadas por microorganismos grampositivos en España.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficiency of daptomycin as firstline therapy (D) versus daptomycin as salvage therapy after vancomycin (V→D ) or linezolid (L→D) failure in gram-positive bacteraemia and complicated skin and skin-structure infections (cSSTIs). METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis of 161 bacteraemia and 84 cSSTIs patients comparing the above mentioned therapeutic alternatives was performed using the data from 27 Spanish hospitals involved in the EUCORE study. Direct medical costs were considered. Patients were observed from the first antibiotic dose for infection until either the end of daptomycin therapy or exitus. A multivariate Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis was applied for costs (lognormal distribution) and effectiveness (normal distribution). RESULTS: In terms of effectiveness there were no statistical differences between groups but referring total costs per patient, there were significant differences. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that D dominates over L→D between 44.2%-62.1% of simulations in bacteraemia and between 48.2%-67.5% in cSSTIs. In comparison to V→D, D dominance was detected in 29.2%-33.2% of simulations in bacteraemia and between 48.2%-59.3% in cSSTIs. CONCLUSIONS: Daptomycin as first-line therapy dominates over daptomycin as salvage therapy after linezolid failure both in bacteraemia and cSSTIs. Comparing daptomycin as first-line therapy with its use after vancomycin failure, in cSSTIs the former is dominant. In bacteremia daptomycin as first line therapy is as effective as daptomycin as salvage therapy after vancomycin failure and implies lower costs.

Evaluación farmacoeconómica de daptomicina como terapia de primera línea en el tratamiento de bacteriemia e infecciones complicadas de piel y tejidos blandos causadas por microorganismos grampositivos en España / Pharmacoeconomic assessment of daptomycin as first-line therapy for bacteraemia and complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by gram-positive pathogens in Spain

Objetivo: Evaluar la eficiencia de daptomicina como tratamiento de primera línea (D) frente a su uso como tratamiento de rescate tras fallo con vancomicina (V→D) o linezolid (L→D) en la terapia de bacteriemia e infecciones complicadas de piel y tejidos blandos (IcPTB) causadas por microorganismos grampositivos. Métodos: Análisis coste-efectividad de 161 pacientes con bacteriemia y 84 IcPTB procedentes de 27 hospitales españoles participantes en el estudio observacional, multicéntrico, retrospectivo EUCORE. Los costes directos médicos se registraron desde la primera dosis de tratamiento hasta su finalización o exitus. Se aplicó un análisis probabilístico de Monte Carlo para costes (distribución log-normal) y efectividad (distribución normal). Resultados: No se encontraron diferencias significativas en la efectividad de las distintas alternativas pero sí en los costes totales por paciente. En el análisis de sensibilidad, se confirmó que en bacteriemia e IcPTB la alternativa D fue dominante sobre L→D entre el 44,2% - 62,1% y del 48,2 - 67,5%, respectivamente. Respecto a D vs V→D, en bacteriemia la alternativa D fue dominante entre el 29,2% - 33,2% de las simulaciones y en IcPTB entre 48,2% - 59,3%. Conclusiones: Daptomicina como tratamiento de primera línea es la alternativa dominante sobre daptomicina como terapia de rescate tras fracaso de linezolid tanto en bacteriemia como en IcPTB. Daptomicina también es la alternativa dominante en IcPTB como tratamiento de primera línea sobre daptomicina como rescate tras el fallo de vancomicina, mientras que en bacteremia su uso en primera línea es similar en efectividad e implica costes menores (AU)

Objective: To assess the efficiency of daptomycin as firstline therapy (D) versus daptomycin as salvage therapy after vancomycin (V→D ) or linezolid (L→D) failure in gram-positive bacteraemia and complicated skin and skin-structure infections (cSSTIs). Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis of 161 bacteraemia and 84 cSSTIs patients comparing the above mentioned therapeutic alternatives was performed using the data from 27 Spanish hospitals involved in the EUCORE study. Direct medical costs were considered. Patients were observed from the first antibiotic dose for infection until either the end of daptomycin therapy or exitus. A multivariate Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis was applied for costs (lognormal distribution) and effectiveness (normal distribution). Results: In terms of effectiveness there were no statistical differences between groups but referring total costs per patient, there were significant differences. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that D dominates over L→D between 44.2%-62.1% of simulations in bacteraemia and between 48.2%-67.5% in cSSTIs. In comparison to V→D, D dominance was detected in 29.2%-33.2% of simulations in bacteraemia and between 48.2%-59.3% in cSSTIs. Conclusions: Daptomycin as first-line therapy dominates over daptomycin as salvage therapy after linezolid failure both in bacteraemia and cSSTIs. Comparing daptomycin as first-line therapy with its use after vancomycin failure, in cSSTIs the former is dominant. In bacteremia daptomycin as first line therapy is as effective as daptomycin as salvage therapy after vancomycin failure and implies lower costs(AU)

Cost-effectiveness analysis of linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: complicated skin and skin structure infection using Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) is a prominent infection encountered in hospital and outpatient settings that is associated with high resource use for the health-care system. OBJECTIVE: A decision analytic (DA) model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin in MRSA cSSSI. METHODS: Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis were used to generate efficacy and safety parameters for a DA model using published clinical trials. CEA was done from the US health-care perspective. Efficacy was defined as a successfully treated patient at the test of cure without any adverse reaction. Primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between linezolid and vancomycin, daptomycin and vancomycin, and linezolid and daptomycin in MRSA cSSSI. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The total direct costs of linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin were $18,057, $20,698, and $23,671, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratios for linezolid, daptomycin, and vancomycin were $37,604, $44,086, and $52,663 per successfully treated patient, respectively. Linezolid and daptomycin were dominant strategies compared to vancomycin. However, linezolid was dominant when compared to daptomycin. The model was sensitive to the duration of daptomycin and linezolid treatment. CONCLUSION: Linezolid and daptomycin are potentially cost-effective based on the assumptions of the DA model; however, linezolid appears to be more cost-effective compared to daptomycin and vancomycin for MRSA cSSSIs.

Multiresistant bacteria and current therapy - the economical side of the story.

UNLABELLED: Severe infections with multiresistant bacteria (MRB) are a medical challenge and a financial burden for hospitals. The adequate antibiotic therapy is a key issue in multiresistant bacteria management. Several major cost drivers have been identified. Remarkably drug acquisition costs are not necessarily included. Most significant are the length of stay in hospital, the hours of mechanical ventilation and the time treated on an intensive care unit. - In a systematic review of the literature the following aspects were investigated: - Do generic treatment strategies contribute in cost savings? - Are there specific results for recent antibiotics? - Early adequate and effective antimicrobial treatment, switch from i.v. to oral therapy, adjusted duration of therapy and adherence to guidelines have been found to be successful strategies. - Looking at specific antibiotics, the best evidence for cost-effectiveness is found for Linezolid in treatment of cSSTI as well as in HAP. Daptomycin shows good economic results in bloodstream infections, so possibly being a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin. Looking at tigecycline the published data show neither higher costs nor savings compared to imipeneme. Doripenem as one of the newest therapy options has proven to be highly cost-saving in HAP when compared with imipenem. However, most analyses are based on pharmacoeconomic modelling rather than on directly analysing trial data or real life clinical populations. - CONCLUSION: Using modern antibiotics in whole is not more expensive than using established therapies. Modern antibiotics are cost-effective and sometimes even cost-saving. This is especially true if an effective therapy is initiated as early as possible.

Inpatient treatment patterns, outcomes, and costs of skin and skin structure infections because of Staphylococcus aureus.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus (SA) is a common bacterial pathogen in skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs). Limited data exist on hospital treatment patterns and costs for SA-SSSIs. METHODS: This retrospective analysis examined the lengths of stay, treatment patterns, and costs of hospitalized patients with an SA-SSSI diagnosis using a nationally representative inpatient database. Patients were selected if they had an ICD-9-CM diagnosis of an SSSI with SA noted between January 2005 and June 2006, received a study antibiotic (ie, intravenous [IV] vancomycin, IV or oral linezolid, and IV daptomycin), and were not in the intensive care unit before receiving a study antibiotic. Generalized linear models assessed predictors of length of stay and costs. Costs are expressed in 2005 US dollars. RESULTS: Thirteen thousand four hundred thirty-three patients met the selection criteria and mean (+/-SD) age was 48.2 (+/-18.3) years. Forty percent of patients received a nonstudy antibiotic before receiving their first study antibiotic. Ninety-five percent were prescribed vancomycin as their first study antibiotic. Study antibiotics were administered for an average of 4.3 days, and 8% of patients switched study antibiotics. Nineteen percent of patients receiving IV linezolid stepped down to oral linezolid. Mean (+/-SD) lengths of hospital stay and costs were 6.1 (+/-6.0) days and $6830 (+/-$7100). In-hospital mortality, switching antibiotics, and diagnoses of selected complications or comorbidities were associated with increased lengths of stay and costs. Younger age, location outside the Northeast, and use of oral linezolid were associated with lower lengths of stay and costs. CONCLUSION: The costs of treating inpatient SA-SSSIs are substantial and vary by patient demographics and treatment characteristics.

Cost-Effectiveness of daptomycin versus vancomycin and gentamicin for patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and/or endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an increasingly common cause of bacteremia and endocarditis. The cost-effectiveness (CE) of daptomycin was compared with that of vancomycin-gentamicin in patients with MRSA bacteremia with or without endocarditis. METHODS: With use of data from an open-label, randomized study comparing daptomycin with vancomycin-gentamicin in the aforementioned patient population, 3 cost strata were considered: (1) study drug acquisition (daptomycin, $0.37/mg; vancomycin, $7/g; and gentamicin, $0.12/mg); (2) stratum 1 plus the cost of therapy for treatment failures and adverse events, therapeutic drug monitoring, and preparation and administration of all medications; and (3) stratum 2 plus hospital bed costs. Drug costs were based on mean wholesale price, with other costs based on those for a typical community hospital. Cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as cost divided by proportion of successes. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying the study drug cost. RESULTS: Forty-five (20 successes) and 44 (14 successes) patients received daptomycin and vancomycin-gentamicin, respectively. The respective median cost-effectiveness ratios for daptomycin and vancomycin-gentamicin for each cost stratum were as follows: $4082 (range, $1062-$13,893) and $560 (range, $66-$1649) for stratum 1 (P < .001); $4582 (range, $1109-$21,882) and $1635 (range, $163-$33,444) for stratum 2 (P = .026); $23,639 (range, $6225-$141,132) and $26,073 (range, $5349-$187,287) for stratum 3 (P = .82). Sensitivity analyses indicated that if the cost of vancomycin was $0, strata 3 cost-effectiveness ratios did not differ ($23,639 and $25,668, respectively; P = .85). Similar results between groups were seen among patients with bacteremia. CONCLUSIONS: When all costs of therapy were considered, the cost-effectiveness of daptomycin and vancomycin-gentamicin was similar, even if the cost of vancomycin was $0.

Are glycopeptides still appropriate and convenient for empiric use?

The glycopeptides vancomycin and teicoplanin are widely used, and indeed recommended for, the treatment of severe or resistant Gram-positive infections. Therapeutic drug monitoring is widely used for vancomycin but less commonly for teicoplanin, and remains controversial. We report the cost savings of a formulary decision to replace teicoplanin with daptomycin for the empiric treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (CSSTIs), staphylococcal bacteraemia and hospital-acquired Gram-positive sepsis. In the Intensive Therapy Unit (ITU) we optimised treatment of serious Gram-positive infections by substituting teicoplanin with vancomycin administered by continuous infusion. Costs were calculated using British National Formulary (BNF) prices and costs for therapeutic drug monitoring. Daptomycin (350 mg/d) use was associated with a cost saving per 7 days of treatment of 86 pounds and vancomycin with 51 pounds (4 g/d) to 276 pounds (2 g/d) compared to the 600 mg teicoplanin dose. Our own formulary re-positioning of glyco/lipopeptides, i.e. the preferential use of vancomycin in the ITU and substitution of teicoplanin with daptomycin, is cost-effective and provides better therapeutic alternatives. Continuous vancomycin infusion in the ITU setting guarantees optimal dosing for severely ill patients. Daptomycin use on surgical and medical wards, apart from being marginally cheaper than teicoplanin, guarantees optimal dosing without the need for drug monitoring.

[Daptomycin: revitalizing a former drug due to the need of new active agents against grampositive multiresistant bacterias]. / Daptomicina: revitalizando un antiguo fármaco ante la necesidad de nuevos agentes activos frente a bacterias grampositivas multirresistentes.

The development of mechanisms of resistance of many Gram-positive bacterial strains that cause complicated skin and soft tissue infections, as well as sepsis and bacteremia, has necessitated the search for new drugs that will improve treatment strategies. Daptomycin is a cyclic lipopeptide antibacterial that was launched for the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections caused by Gram-positive organisms. The drug's mechanism of action is different from that of any other antibiotic. It binds to bacterial membranes and causes a rapid depolarization of membrane potential. This loss of membrane potential causes inhibition of protein, DNA and RNA synthesis, which results in bacterial cell death. The in vitro spectrum of activity of daptomycin encompasses most clinically relevant aerobic Gram-positive pathogenic bacteria. Compared to other antibiotics with a similar antibacterial spectrum, daptomycin does not cause nephrotoxicity. Taking these and other characteristics into consideration, daptomycin appears to be a good alternative to other drugs used in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections and in Gram-positive bacteremial infections.

Daptomycin versus vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections: clinical and economic outcomes.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of daptomycin compared with vancomycin on the clinical and economic outcomes in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label study. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center in Detroit, Michigan. PATIENTS: Fifty-three adult patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections at risk for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection who were treated with daptomycin and a matched cohort of 212 patients treated with vancomycin. INTERVENTION: Patients in the prospective arm received intravenous daptomycin 4 mg/kg every 24 hours for at least 3 days but not more than 14 days. Historical controls received at least 3 days of vancomycin dosed to achieve trough concentrations of 5-20 microg/ml. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes evaluated included blinded assessments of clinical resolution, duration of therapy, and costs. The most common diagnoses were cellulitis (31%), abscess (22%), and both cellulitis with abscess (37%). Microbiology differed significantly between groups, with S. aureus found in 27 patients (51%) in the daptomycin group and 167 patients (79%) in the vancomycin group and MRSA in 22 (42%) and 159 (75%), respectively (p<0.001). The proportions of patients with clinical improvement or resolution of their infections on days 3 and 5 were 90% versus 70% and 98% versus 81% in the daptomycin versus vancomycin groups, respectively (p<0.01 for both comparisons), and 100% at the end of therapy in both groups. Among patients with complete resolution of their infections (41 patients [77%] with daptomycin vs 89 patients [42%] with vancomycin, p<0.05), median duration of intravenous therapy was 4 and 7 days, respectively, (p<0.001), and hospital costs were $5027 and $7552 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving daptomycin achieved more rapid resolution of symptoms and clinical cure and had a decreased duration of inpatient therapy compared with those receiving vancomycin. This study suggests that daptomycin is a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections.