Cost-effectiveness model of empiric doripenem compared with imipenem-cilastatin in ventilator-associated pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common complication of critical illness among surgical and trauma patients. Inappropriate empiric treatment of VAP increases the mortality rate. The rates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) VAP susceptibility to doripenem (DOR) are higher than those to imipenem-cilastatin (IMI). We developed a model to quantify outcome differences between strategies of empiric treatment of VAP with DOR vs. IMI. METHODS: We designed a cost-effectiveness model comparing empiric treatment of VAP with DOR vs. IMI from both the hospital and societal perspectives. We examined the differences in the number of deaths, hospital length of stay (LOS), total costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) under each scenario and conducted Monte Carlo simulations and sensitivity analyses to determine the stability of our estimates. Drug costs were taken as 80% of wholesale acquisition costs, with other inputs derived from the literature. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, assuming a PA-VAP attributable mortality rate of 38.4% and a 49% relative risk reduction in deaths in PA-sensitive (PA-S) infections to empiric drug compared with a resistant PA (PA-R) organism, DOR use resulted in three additional deaths avoided, 117.4 days of hospitalization averted, and hospital savings of $422,524 per 1,000 patients treated at a cost of $5,748/QALY. All estimates were most sensitive to the costs of treating PA-S and PA-R infections. In a multivariable analysis, hospital cost savings persisted across >80% of the simulations (95% confidence interval $432,615-$2,148,540). CONCLUSIONS: Given the current microbiologic sensitivity profile of PA to DOR and IMI, and depending on the local susceptibility patterns and in institutions where DOR in vitro susceptibilities are superior to those of other carbapenems for PA clinical isolates, empiric treatment of VAP with DOR may dominate that with IMI by being both life- and cost-saving.

Management and prevention of diabetic foot ulcers and infections: a health economic review.

Diabetic foot ulcers and infections are common and incur substantial economic burden for society, patients and families. We performed a comprehensive review, on a number of databases, of health economic evaluations of a variety of different prevention, diagnostic and treatment strategies in the area of diabetic foot ulcers and infections. We included English-language, peer-reviewed, cost-effectiveness, cost-minimization, cost-utility and cost-benefit studies that evaluated a treatment modality against placebo or comparator (i.e. drug, standard of care), regardless of year. Differences were settled through consensus. The search resulted in 1885 potential citations, of which 20 studies were retained for analysis (3 cost minimization, 13 cost effectiveness and 4 cost utility). Quality scores of studies ranged from 70.8% (fair) to 87.5% (good); mean = 78.4% +/- 5.33%.In diagnosing osteomyelitis in patients with diabetic foot infection, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed 82% sensitivity and 80% specificity. MRI cost less than 3-phase bone scanning + Indium (In)-111/Gallium (Ga)-67; however, when compared with prolonged antibacterials, MRI cost $US120 (year 1993 value) more without additional quality-adjusted life-expectancy. Prevention strategies improved life expectancy and QALYs and reduced foot ulcer rates and amputations.Ampicillin/sulbactam and imipenem/cilastatin were both 80% successful in treating diabetic foot infections but the latter cost $US2924 more (year 1994 value). Linezolid cure rates were higher (97.7%) than vancomycin (86.0%) and cost $US873 less (year 2004 value). Ertapenem costs were significantly lower than piperacillin/tazobactam ($US356 vs $US503, respectively; year 2005 values). Becaplermin plus good wound care may be cost effective in specific populations. Bioengineered living-skin equivalents increased ulcer-free months and ulcers healed, but costs varied between countries. Promogran produced more ulcer-free months than wound care alone (3.75 vs 3.41 months, respectively). Treatment with cadexomer iodine resulted in higher rates of healed ulcer (29% vs 11%) and lower weekly treatment costs (Swedish krona [SEK]903 vs SEK1421; year 1993 values) than standard care. Filgrastim decreased hospital stays, time to resolution and costs (36% lower) compared with usual care. Adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen produced an incremental cost per QALY at year 1 of $US27 310 and $US2255 at year 12 (year 2001 values).Overall, preventive strategies were shown to be cost effective and potentially cost saving. Various antibacterial regimens are cost effective but empiric choices should be based on local resistance patterns. MRI was cost effective compared with three-phase bone scanning + In-111/Ga-67 but not against prolonged antibacterial therapy. Other innovations (becaplermin, bioengineered living-skin equivalents, filgrastim, cadexomer iodine ointment, hyperbaric oxygen, Promogran may be cost effective in this population but more studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Predictors of efficacy and health resource utilization in treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections: evidence for pooled clinical studies comparing tigecycline with imipenem-cilastatin.

BACKGROUND: Duration of intravenous (IV) treatment, surgical/radiologic interventions for infection control, and hospital length of stay (LOS) are important cost considerations in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). METHODS: Data were pooled from two multinational, double-blind studies conducted in hospitalized adults with cIAIs who were randomized (1:1) to receive tigecycline (100 mg IV initial dose then 50 mg IV every 12 h) or imipenem-cilastatin (500 mg IV every 6 h) for 5 to 14 days in order to assess tigecycline safety and efficacy. This report focuses on developing predictors of cure and health care resource utilization, including the need for repeat surgical/radiologic interventions, duration of IV antibiotic therapy, and hospital LOS. Multiple regression models were applied for each of the above outcomes, incorporating both baseline and on-treatment potential covariates. Logistic modeling was used for categorical outcomes (cure; repeat surgical/radiologic interventions) and least squares modeling for continuous outcomes (duration of IV antibiotic therapy; LOS). Stepwise selection was used to retain only those predictors found to be significant (p < 0.05) independent risk factors. RESULTS: The most common causative pathogen was Escherichia coli (63.0%), with 63.3% of the patients exhibiting polymicrobial infections. The most common cIAI diagnosis was complicated appendicitis (51.9%). Lack of clinical cure (+ 6.1 days; p < 0.0001), perforation of the intestine (+3.7 days; p < 0.0001), an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) score >15 (+3.1 days; p=0.039), abnormal plasma sodium concentration (+3.7 days; p=0.026), and repeat surgical/radiologic intervention (+2.2 days; p=0.0097) were identified as key risk factors for longer LOS. Inadequate source control was associated with reduced odds of cure, longer IV treatment duration (+1.5 days; p=0.007), and longer LOS. The treatment groups did not differ in terms of LOS, IV treatment duration, or clinical cure. CONCLUSION: Tigecycline was similar to imipenem-cilastatin in terms of both efficacy and health resource utilization. Risk factors identified in this study for both outcome measures are offered as support for guiding clinical practice.

Cost-utility analysis comparing meropenem with imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections in intensive care.

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of meropenem with that of imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections in hospital intensive care in the UK. A Markov model was constructed to model lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of using meropenem and imipenem plus cilastatin for the treatment of severe infections in intensive care. Estimates of effectiveness, utility weights and costs were obtained from the published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Estimated treatment costs for the patient cohort were pound 14,938 with meropenem and pound 15,585 with imipenem plus cilastatin. QALYs gained were 7,495 with meropenem and 7,413 with imipenem plus cilastatin. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed meropenem to be significantly less costly (-pound 636.47, 95% CI -pound 132.33 to -pound 1,140.62) and more effective (0.084, 95% CI 0.023 to 0.144). Meropenem thus appears significantly more effective and less expensive than imipenem plus cilastatin and should therefore be considered the dominant treatment strategy.

Imipenem/cilastatin versus piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin for empirical therapy in febrile neutropenic patients: results of the COSTINE study.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of beta-lactams plus aminoglycosides have become standard therapy for suspected infections in patients with profound neutropenia. However, it is not clear whether such combinations are advantageous over therapy with a broad-spectrum antibiotic. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness ratio of empirical therapy of febrile neutropenia with imipenem/cilastatin (I/C) versus piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin (P/T+A). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Prospective, multicenter observational study with 2 matched parallel cohorts treated with I/C (500 mg/6 h iv) or P/T+A (P/T: 4 g/6 h iv; A: 20 mg/kg/day iv). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Therapeutic success was defined as the resolution of fever following > or = 7 days of unchanged antibiotic treatment. An economic comparison was conducted focusing on the daily treatment costs, and the management of its toxicity. RESULTS: There were 343 eligible patients (180 I/C, 163 P/T+A), of whom 290 were evaluable for the primary clinical effectiveness analysis. Follow-up information beyond 7 days of study inclusion was only available for 52% of all evaluable patients. Treatment success was observed in 42% of I/C patients compared with 31% of P/T+A patients (95% CI: -0.01, 21.4). The incidence of drug-related adverse experiences was 13% for I/C and 6% for P/T+A, with no differences in moderate or severe adverse experiences nor in those causing discontinuation of antibiotic therapy. Treatment costs were 189.55 euros (95% CI: 127.46-251.46) lower per episode of febrile neutropenia for patients treated with I/C. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effectiveness of I/C was similar to that of P/T+A. In both treatment groups toxicity was low and did not limit antibiotic therapy. Resource consumption was lower with I/C.

The cost-effectiveness of cefepime plus metronidazole versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to compare the economic benefits of cefepime plus metronidazole with those of imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. METHODS: We used a retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and health resource utilization data collected during a randomized, double-blind, multi-center clinical trial. Seventeen university-affiliated hospitals in the United States and Canada participated, as did 323 patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Decision analysis was conducted using a decision node of cefepime vs. imipenem, and chance nodes that included an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score of #15 versus .15; a need for posttreatment surgical procedures; and clinical outcomes. Effectiveness of treatment was measured by differences in the length and cost of hospital stays, the number and cost of surgical procedures after treatment, cure rates, and the cost of antibiotics. Also evalulated were the incremental costs of cure (i.e., the costs of additional cures). RESULTS: Comparing cefepime plus metronidazole with imipenem/cilastatin, the expected cost of patient care was $8,218 versus $10,414, respectively, and the cost-effectiveness ratio per cure was $10,058 versus $13,685. For severely ill patients (APACHE II score .15), the expected cost was $12,962 versus $23,153, and the cost-effectiveness ratio per cure was $15,321 versus $64,313. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime plus metronidazole was more cost-effective than imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections, primarily because of fewer post-treatment surgical procedures and shorter hospital stays. The primary advantage accrued to severely ill patients who had an APACHE II score .15.

Empiric carbapenem monotherapy in pediatric bone marrow transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which carbapenem (imipenem/cilastatin or meropenem) was the preferable empiric antibiotic monotherapy in pre-engrafted pediatric bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients in terms of patient tolerance, therapeutic efficacy, and cost. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed 16 pediatric BMT patients who received meropenem, and retrospectively analyzed 16 matched patients who had received imipenem/cilastatin for BMT procedures during the prior 2-year period. We evaluated the patients for evidence of bacterial infection, necessity for concurrent antibiotics, vomiting episodes, duration of concurrent total parenteral nutrition (TPN), and cost of therapy. RESULTS: We found no differences in the number of culture proven or clinically suspected breakthrough bacterial infections or the need for concurrent additional antibiotics between the groups. Our analysis found that patients who received meropenem experienced significantly less vomiting than those in the imipenem/cilastatin cohort. Our data showed both direct and indirect cost savings for the meropenem group. The statistical and clinical differences in the number of vomiting episodes between these groups impacted other aspects of patient care, antiemetic use, and TPN duration. CONCLUSIONS: By switching to meropenem, we reduced the cost of antiemetic therapy per patient treatment course, and also showed a trend toward reduced duration of TPN. We found that meropenem provided both clinical and fiscal advantages over imipenem/cilastatin as empiric antibiotic monotherapy in neutropenic pediatric BMT patients.

Carbapenems in the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized elderly patients: a comparative study against standard therapy.

In this open, prospective, study were enrolled 204 hospitalized elderly patients with severe (88 males, 116 females, age range 70-94). Patients were randomized to receive one of the following antibiotic treatment regimens: meropenem 500 mg i.v. t.i.d. (52); imipenem/cilastatin 500 mg i.v. t.i.d. (51), clarithromycin 500 mg + ceftriaxone 1 g i.v. b.i.d. (52), clarithromycin 500 mg + amikacin 250 mg i.v. b.i.d. (49). In 99 cases causative germs were isolated (24 meropenem, 26 imipenem, 23 clarithromycin + ceftriaxone, 26 ceftriaxone + amikacin). A satisfactory clinical, bacteriological response was achieved respectively in 86.5% 77% in meropenem; 86.3% 71% in imipenem/cilastatin; 69% 61% in ceftriaxone + clarithromycin and in 85.7% 77% in clarithromycin + amikacin. The mean total cost for each patient was $1,560; $1,620; $1,760 and $1,792 in meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, clarithromycin + ceftriaxone and clarithromycin + amikacin respectively. This study shows that treatment with either meropenem or imipenem is as efficacious as conventional therapy in the treatment of community acquired pneumonia (CAP), and that meropenem is the most cost-effective.

Cost efficacy of tazobactam/piperacillin versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infection.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost, efficacy and cost efficacy of tazobactam/piperacillin and imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infection. DESIGN: The analysis was retrospective and based on a decision tree. Effectiveness data were obtained from 19 published clinical trials. Direct costs were quantified per patient from the time the decision was made to administer the antibacterial to the end of the first course of treatment or the end of a subsequent course of treatment, if required. The primary end-point was the cost per successfully treated patient. The cost per life saved was also analysed. Various follow-up times were taken into account. PERSPECTIVE: German National Health Insurance funds. STUDY POPULATION: 1744 patients with intra-abdominal infection. INTERVENTIONS: Tazobactam/piperacillin (total daily dosage of 13.5 g/day) and imipenem/cilastatin (total daily dosage of 1.5 to 4 g/day). The mean duration of treatment varied from 5.5 to 8.2 days for tazobactam/piperacillin and 5 to 9.4 days for imipenem/cilastatin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND RESULTS: Compared with imipenem/cilastatin, treatment with tazobactam/piperacillin was more effective and the overall treatment costs were lower. In the base-case analysis, the cost-efficacy ratio (cost per successfully treated patient) was 7881 German deutschmarks (DM) for tazobactam/piperacillin and DM11,390 for imipenem/cilastatin. The incremental cost-efficacy ratio (per life saved) varied between -DM72,567 and -DM350,738 for tazobactam/piperacillin. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were robust against various assumptions on cost parameters, clinical outcomes and length of treatment. All costs reflect 1998 values; $US1 = DM1.85. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that compared with imipenem/cilastatin, tazobactam/piperacillin is more cost efficacious in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections and that it offers a cost advantage through fewer relapses and lower daily therapeutic costs.

Epidemiology, resistance, and outcomes of Acinetobacter baumannii bacteremia treated with imipenem-cilastatin or ampicillin-sulbactam.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate epidemiology, resistance, and treatment outcomes of Acinetobacter baumannii bacteremia treated with imipenem-cilastatin or ampicillin-sulbactam for 72 hours or longer. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: University teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Forty-eight patients with A. baumannii bacteremia. INTERVENTION: Evaluation of susceptibility and clinical data from 48 patients treated with either ampicillin-sulbactam or imipenem-cilastatin from 1987-1999. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Comparing ampicillin-sulbactam and imipenem-cilastatin, there were no differences between days of bacteremia (4 vs 2 days, p=0.05), days to resolution of temperature or white blood cell count, success or failure during or at end of treatment, or intensive care unit total or antibiotic-related length of stay (13 vs 10 days, p=0.05). Patients treated with ampicillin-sulbactam had significantly decreased antibiotic treatment costs (1500 dollars vs 500 dollars, p=0.004). CONCLUSION: Ampicillin-sulbactam is at least as effective as imipenem-cilastatin based on clinical response at days 2, 7, and end of treatment and is a cost-effective alternative for treatment of A. baumannii infections.

Cost-effectiveness study of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in intra-abdominal infections.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of two carbapenems, imipenem/cilastatin (I/C, 1.5 g daily) versus meropenem (3 g daily) in intra-abdominal infections was assessed in a recent multicenter randomized clinical trial. The aim of this article is to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis as in real-world practice according to the findings of this clinical trial. METHODS: A decision tree was used to estimate the clinical outcomes and direct costs of treating intra-abdominal infections using the two carbapenems from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (INHS) or a private insurance company (PIC). RESULTS: In a population of 30,000 patients with intra-abdominal infections in Italy, it was estimated that 97 potential deaths/year could be avoided if these patients were treated with I/C versus meropenem. In addition, from the perspective of INHS, the total costs of treatment were estimated as ITL 106,874 million and 134,042 million for I/C and meropenem, respectively. In favor of the PIC point of view, the total costs were estimated as ITL 110,500 million and 135,899 million for I/C and meropenem, respectively. CONCLUSION: The treatment of intra-abdominal infections with I/C is shown to be more effective (97 deaths avoided/year) and less costly than with meropenem (with a saving of ITL 27,168 and 25,399 million/year for INHS and PIC, respectively).

[Evidence-based medicine, health costs and treatment of intra-abdominal infection]. / Medicina basada en la evidencia, costes sanitarios y tratamiento de la infección intraabdominal.

BACKGROUND: Anti-infectious drugs are among the most-prescribed medications in the community, in 1997 being more than 9% of all drugs prescribed by the Spanish National Health System. In the particular case of the treatment of patients with moderate or severe intra-abdominal infection, economic aspects are important. Antimicrobial therapy is responsible for as much as 50% of the drug budget in some Spanish hospitals. On the other hand, as more options become available for the treatment of intra-abdominal infection, it is important to know their clinical and economic consequences. Imipenem/cilastatin (IC) is a broad-spectrum beta-lactam antibiotic that has demonstrated its effectiveness in the treatment of nosocomial and community-acquired bacterial infections. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine if IC has a favorable cost-effectiveness relation compared to other antibiotic therapies for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was made based on retrospective information on the treatment of patients over 18 with clinical suspicion of moderate-to-severe intra-abdominal infection. Health-care results were measured in natural health units (percentage of clinically favorable cases) in a systematic review of the literature. Direct health-care costs associated with the treatments compared were calculated. The other options studied, apart from IC, included the most common and least expensive option (a combination of an aminoglycoside and an anaerobicide [AA]) and an antibiotic from the same family as IC, meropenem (M). RESULTS: The results, in terms of the percentage of patients with clinically favorable results, showed that the effectiveness of IC was equivalent to that of M (95.2% vs. 96.4%) and the AA association (88.0% vs. 86.6%). Analysis of cost minimization showed that the total cost per patient treated with the IC and M options was similar, but that the lower price of IC slightly reduced the total cost per patient treated (ptas. 455,320 IC and ptas. 483,404 M). In the comparison of IC and AA, the higher price of IC was compensated for by the lower cost associated with the duration of hospitalization in patients treated with IC (total cost per patients treated ptas. 844,678 IC and ptas. 1,009,180 AA). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the meta-analysis showed that imipenem/cilastatin was highly effective (more than 90% clinically favorable results) and that it can be considered a minimum equivalent to meropenem and to the combination of an aminoglycoside and anaerobicide for the treatment of patients with moderate or severe intra-abdominal infection. Given the equivalence in effectiveness of the options studied, analysis of cost minimization was used to study their relative effectiveness. This analysis showed that IC was accompanied by lower costs per patient than M and AA. The most relevant variables in the study of the efficiency of the treatment of intra-abdominal infections were, in conditions of equivalent effectiveness, days of hospitalization (and associated costs) and drug price.

Cost-minimization analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus imipenem/cilastatin for the treatment of serious infections: a Canadian hospital perspective.

BACKGROUND: In 1998 we reported the first Canadian double-blind, randomized, clinical trial involving a comparison of piperacillin/tazobactam (P/T) with imipenem/cilastatin (I/C). The present study was conducted to determine the feasibility of replacing I/C at our institution. OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcome of a pharmacoeconomic analysis of the clinical trial from the perspective of a tertiary acute-care institution. METHODS: A total of 150 consenting adults originally prescribed I/C were randomly assigned to receive either P/T 4.5 g i.v. (n = 75) or I/C 500 mg i.v. (n = 75) every six hours. Actual direct medical resources used in relation to the treatment of bacterial infections were prospectively assessed during a clinical trial; these included cost of study and ancillary antibiotics, hospitalization, diagnostic testing (radiology, laboratory assessments), and labor, as well as treatment of adverse drug reactions, antibiotic failures, and superinfections. RESULTS: While costs for successful treatment courses were similar across treatment arms, hospitalization costs for treatment course failures were higher for P/T recipients. Direct medical costs for treatment courses associated with a superinfection were also higher in the P/T arm. Overall costs for treatment failures with either study drug were at least twofold those observed for successful treatment courses. Mean total management cost per patient in the P/T group was $15,211 ($ CDN throughout) (95% CI $11,429 to $18,993), compared with $14,232 (95% CI $11,421 to $17,043) in the I/C group (p = 0.32), resulting in a mean cost difference of $979. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the superiority of I/C over P/T for successful treatment of serious infections was sensitive to changes in the cost of hospitalization and drug efficacy for either drug. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the clinical trial, P/T and I/C offer similar clinical, microbiologic, and toxicity outcomes in hospitalized patients with serious infections. Under base-case conditions, our pharmacoeconomic analysis showed that I/C was a cost-effective alternative to P/T at the dosage regimens studied. However, this finding was sensitive to plausible changes in both clinical and economic parameters.

Cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime or imipenem/cilastatin versus ceftriaxone + aminoglycoside in the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients in Germany.

A three-pronged cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients was conducted. It included a review of 37 randomized, controlled studies in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1980-1996). Clinical outcomes as well as costs of treatment with imipenem/cilastatin, ceftazidime and ceftriaxone + aminoglycoside were compared. Primary therapy and modification, respectively, were successful in 62 and 27% of patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin, in 56 and 31% with ceftazidime and in 41 and 13% with ceftriaxone + aminoglycoside. From the perspective of a 1,800-bed teaching hospital, the average overall cost per successfully treated patient was DM 7,475 with imipenem/cilastatin, DM 7,810 with ceftazidime and DM 8,963 with ceftriaxone + netilmicin (DM 1 = USD 0.56; 7/97). The costs for the German national economy were imipenem/cilastatin DM 23,828, ceftazidime DM 24,985 and ceftriaxone + netilmicin DM 29,838.

Cost effectiveness of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole versus imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of sequential intravenous (i.v.) to oral ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole (CIP/MTZ i.v./PO) with that of i.v. ciprofloxacin plus i.v. metronidazole (CIP/MTZ i.v.) and i.v. imipenem-cilastatin (IMI i.v.) in patients with intra-abdominal infections. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled in a double-blind randomised clinical trial were eligible for inclusion into this cost-effectiveness analysis. Decision analysis was used to characterise the economic outcomes between groups and provide a structure upon which to base the sensitivity analyses. 1996 cost values were used throughout. SETTING: The economic perspective of the analysis was that of a hospital provider. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Among 446 economically evaluable patients, 176 could be switched from i.v. to oral administration. The 51 patients randomised to CIP/MTZ i.v./PO who received active oral therapy had a success rate of 98%, mean duration of therapy of 9.1 days and mean cost of $US7678. There were 125 patients randomized to either CIP/MTZ i.v. or IMI i.v. who received oral placebo while continuing on active i.v. antibacterials; their success rate was 94%, mean duration of therapy was 10.1 days and mean cost was $US8774 (p = 0.029 vs CIP/MTZ i.v./PO). Of the 270 patients who were unable to receive oral administration, 97 received IMI i.v. and had a success rate of 75%, mean duration of therapy of 13.8 days and a mean cost of $US12,418, and 173 received CIP/MTZ i.v. and had a success rate of 77%, mean duration of therapy of 13.4 days and mean cost of $US12,219 (p = 0.26 vs IMI i.v.). CONCLUSIONS: In patients able to receive oral therapy, sequential i.v. to oral treatment with ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole was cost effective compared with full i.v. courses of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole or imipenem-cilastatin. In patients unable to receive oral therapy, no difference in mean cost was found between i.v. imipenem-cilastatin or i.v. ciprofloxacin plus i.v. metronidazole.

[Comparative study of the cost-effectiveness of initial therapy with imipenem/cilastatin in secondary peritonitis]. / Vergleichende Untersuchung zum Kosten-/Effektivitätsverhältnis einer initialen Therapie mit Imipenem/Cilastatin bei der sekundären Peritonitis.

The total costs of the hospital treatment of patients with secondary peritonitis were investigated with a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness of an initial therapy with Imipenem/Cilastatin was compared to selected alternative antibiotic regimens. Altogether 154 patients (77 Imipenem/Cilastatin group, 77 alternative group) that displayed Mannheim Peritonitis Scores between 16 and 26 (average 20.8) were analyzed. The average total cost of treatment was DM 11,140 per patient (range DM 2794-45,526). Patients receiving an initial therapy with Imipenem/Cilastatin incurred average costs of DM 10,455, while patients with alternative regimens caused average costs of DM 11,826. The difference between the two treatment groups was statistically significant (P = 0.037).

[Carbapenems (thienam and Meronem). Their clinical and economic efficacy]. / Karbapenamy (tienam i meronem). K voprosu o klinicheskoi i ékonomicheskoi éffektivnosti.

The authors describe 229 cases of carbapenem use in intensive care wards. Tienam was used in 205 cases since 1993, meronem in 24 cases since 1996. There were 149 men and 80 women aged 15-76 years (mean age 46.4 +/- 0.7 years). Carbapenemes were administered by 5-7-day courses in a daily dose of 2-6 g (2-4 g for tienam and 2-6 g for meronem). Carbapenemes were administered as monotherapy; in 196 cases nisoral was added to antibiotic therapy starting from day 3 as an antimycotic agent. Bacteriological studies were carried out in 367 patients (413 inoculations). Sensitivity of cultured microflora to disks with tienam (329 tests) and meronem (97 tests) showed their high activity towards gram-positive and gram-negative flora. The results were less demonstrative in cerebral abscesses, which is explained by specific pharmacokinetics of tienam. Analysis of the cost/efficacy ratio confirmed the economic efficacy of this group of drugs.

[Pharmacoeconomics of meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatin]. / Farmacoeconomía de meropenem versus imipenem/cilastatina.

The Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee of our hospital regulates the use of antimicrobial drugs every year. With the coming into the market of the new antibiotic carbapenem meropenem, comparative meropenem, it was assigned to the Drug Information Center the elaboration of comparative report on the two antibiotics, including as well cost analysis. We have analyzed the activities to be made since an antimicrobial drug is purchased until it is administered. We have only assessed on the direct costs that differ in the two antibiotics that are: the pre-use preparation in the pharmacy service and the preparation and administration in hospital floors. We have classified the direct cost in: goods and services, purchases and supplies costs costs and staff costs. We have calculated the daily cost of both antibiotics in the treatment of serious infections and even in more serious, life threatening infections. On top of that, we have a reviewed the use of imipenem/cilastatin and meropenem in our hospital. The information obtained shows that the saving in serious infections is of 34.6% and of 4.5% in more serious infections with vital compromise. The Pharmacy and Therapeutic Commission taking into account the report elaborated, has considered convenient the choice of meropenem as a representative of carbapenem drugs.

Cost-effectiveness of ampicillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in diabetic patients.

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed following a double-blind, randomized study of ampicillin/sulbactam (A/S) versus imipenem/cilastatin (I/C) for the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in 90 diabetic patients. There were no significant differences between the treatments in terms of clinical success rate, adverse-event frequency, duration of study antibiotic treatment, or length of hospitalization. Costs of the study antibiotics, treatment of failures and adverse events, and hospitalization were calculated. Mean per-patient treatment cost in the A/S group was $14,084, compared with $17,008 in the I/C group (P = .05), primarily because of lower drug and hospitalization costs and less-severe adverse events in the A/S group. Sensitivity analyses varying drug prices or hospital costs demonstrated that A/S was consistently more cost-effective than I/C. Varying the clinical success rate for each drug revealed that I/C would have to be 30% more effective than A/S to change the economic decisions.