Linezolid versus vancomycin cost in the treatment of staphylococcal pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: Staphylococcusaureus is involved in around 20% of nosocomial pneumonia cases. Vancomycin used to be the reference antibiotic in this indication, but new molecules have been commercialized, such as linezolid. Previous studies comparing vancomycin and linezolid were based on models. Comparing their real costs from a hospital perspective was needed. METHODS: We performed a bicentric retrospective analysis with a cost-minimization analysis. The hospital antibiotic acquisition costs were used, as well as the laboratory test and administration costs from the health insurance cost scale. The cost of each hospital stay was evaluated using the national cost scale per diagnosis related group (DRG), and was then weighted by the stay duration. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were included. All bacteria identified in pulmonary samples were S. aureus. The cost of nursing care per stay with linezolid was €234.10 (SD=91.50) vs. €381.70 (SD=184.70) with vancomycin (P=0.0029). The cost of laboratory tests for linezolid was €172.30 (SD=128.90) per stay vs. €330.70 (SD=198.40) for vancomycin (P=0.0005). The acquisition cost of linezolid per stay was not different from vancomycin based on the price of the generic drug (€54.92 [SD=20.54] vs. €40.30 [SD=22.70]). After weighting by the duration of stay observed, the mean cost per hospital stay was €47,411.50 for linezolid and €57,694.0 for vancomycin (NSD). CONCLUSION: These results, in favor of linezolid, support other former pharmacoeconomic study based on models. The mean cost per hospitalization stay was not statistically different between the two study groups, but a trend in favor of linezolid is emerging.

Cost of nosocomial pneumonia: the example of vancomycin versus linezolid-shorter stay or fewer complications?

Hospital and national committees often focus on drug acquisition costs when taking decisions on the use of new drugs, but antimicrobial agent costs represent a minor part of the bill compared with the indirect costs of hospitalization or loss in days of productivity in working people. Although reducing the length of stay should be a main priority in the USA due to the indirect costs associated with hospitalization, adverse events, such as renal failure, have a major impact on healthcare resource use and costs. However, where hospital reimbursement is based on closed budgets, the paradox is that treating more patients due to reductions in length of stay may not be attractive to administrators, because the cost of discharging patients earlier is not compensated by the increase in severity in replacing stays of newer patient admissions. Furthermore, neuropsychological, physical, and immune impairment caused by sepsis has an extreme impact on long-term quality of patient life and health care resource consumption. Future research is warranted to further explore the potential impact of newer therapies for infections and sepsis, taking into account the costs of complications, effects on long-term quality of life, and particularly an international perspective, which requires customization for each national payer's system.

The economic burden of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in community-onset pneumonia inpatients.

BACKGROUND: The quantitative effect of multidrug-resistant bacterial infections on real-world health care resources is not clear. This study aimed to estimate the burden of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in pneumonia inpatients in Japan. METHODS: Using a nationwide administrative claims database, we analyzed pneumonia patients who had been hospitalized in 1,063 acute care hospitals. Patients who received anti-MRSA drugs were categorized into an anti-MRSA drug group, and the remaining patients comprised the control group. We estimated the burden of length of stay, in-hospital mortality, total antibiotic agent costs, and total hospitalization costs. Risk adjustments were conducted using propensity score matching. RESULTS: The study sample comprised 634 patients administered anti-MRSA drugs and 87,427 control patients. In propensity score-matching analysis (1 to 1), the median length of stay, antibiotic costs, and hospitalization costs of the anti-MRSA drug group were significantly higher than those of the control group (21 days vs 14 days [P < .001], $756 vs $172 [P < .001] and $8,741 vs $5,063 [P < .001], respectively); the attributable excess of these indicators were 9.0 ± 1.6 days, $1,044 ± $101, and $5,548 ± $580, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings may serve as a reference to support further research on multidrug-resistant bacterial infections and eventually inform policy formulation.

Nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus treated with linezolid or vancomycin: A secondary economic analysis of resource use from a Spanish perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Adopting a unique Spanish perspective, this study aims to assess healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and the costs of treating nosocomial pneumonia (NP) produced by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospitalized adults using linezolid or vancomycin. An evaluation is also made of the renal failure rate and related economic outcomes between study groups. DESIGN: An economic post hoc evaluation of a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase 4 study was carried out. SCOPE: Nosocomial pneumonia due to MRSA in hospitalized adults. PARTICIPANTS: The modified intent to treat (mITT) population comprised 224 linezolid- and 224 vancomycin-treated patients. INTERVENTIONS: Costs and HCRU were evaluated between patients administered either linezolid or vancomycin, and between patients who developed renal failure and those who did not. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: Analysis of HCRU outcomes and costs. RESULTS: Total costs were similar between the linezolid- (€17,782±€9,615) and vancomycin-treated patients (€17,423±€9,460) (P=.69). The renal failure rate was significantly lower in the linezolid-treated patients (4% vs. 15%; P<.001). The total costs tended to be higher in patients who developed renal failure (€19,626±€10,840 vs. €17,388±€9,369; P=.14). Among the patients who developed renal failure, HCRU (days on mechanical ventilation: 13.2±10.7 vs. 7.6±3.6 days; P=.21; ICU stay: 14.4±10.5 vs. 9.9±6.6 days; P=.30; hospital stay: 19.5±9.5 vs. 16.1±11.0 days; P=.26) and cost (€17,219±€8,792 vs. €20,263±€11,350; P=.51) tended to be lower in the linezolid- vs. vancomycin-treated patients. There were no statistically significant differences in costs per patient-day between cohorts after correcting for mortality (€1000 vs. €1,010; P=.98). CONCLUSIONS: From a Spanish perspective, there were no statistically significant differences in total costs between the linezolid and vancomycin pneumonia cohorts. The drug cost corresponding to linezolid was partially offset by fewer renal failure adverse events.

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.

Health economic evaluation of patients treated for nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial of vancomycin and linezolid.

PURPOSE: Results from studies comparing health care resource use (HCRU), costs of treatment, and cost-effectiveness of linezolid compared with vancomycin therapy in the treatment of hospitalized patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia are limited in the published literature. We therefore conducted an analysis to compare the HCRU, costs of treatment, and cost-effectiveness of linezolid compared with vancomycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with MRSA nosocomial pneumonia using data from a Phase IV clinical trial. The economic effect of moderate to severe adverse events (MSAEs) and the development of renal failure were also evaluated. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of data from a Phase IV, double-blind, randomized, comparator-controlled, multicenter trial that compared linezolid and vancomycin treatment in patients with MRSA nosocomial pneumonia. HCRU and costs were compared based on treatment, development of MSAEs, and development of renal failure using data from the modified intent-to-treat population. Predictors of costs were evaluated using generalized linear models. A piggyback cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of linezolid versus vancomycin, given the significantly higher clinical success of linezolid compared with vancomycin found in the trial. FINDINGS: Overall, HCRU and costs were similar between the linezolid and vancomycin treatment groups; drug costs were significantly higher and dialysis costs significantly lower for linezolid- compared with vancomycin-treated patients. Total treatment costs were approximately $8000 higher (P = .046) for patients who developed renal failure compared with those who did not. Renal failure occurred more commonly in patients randomized to receive vancomycin (15%) compared with linezolid (4%; P < .001). Region, ventilator-associated pneumonia, clinical failure, and development of renal failure were associated with significantly higher total costs. The point estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for linezolid compared with vancomycin was $16,516 per treatment success, with linezolid dominant in 24% and dominated in <2% of bootstrapped samples. IMPLICATIONS: This phase 4 clinical trial conducted in patients with MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia reveals that linezolid- compared with vancomycin-treated patients had similar HCRU and total overall costs. Fewer patients developed renal failure during the study while taking linezolid compared with vancomycin, and patients with a documented MSAE or renal failure had increased HCRU and costs. In summary, linezolid may be a cost-effective treatment strategy in MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia.

Modeling the economic impact of linezolid versus vancomycin in confirmed nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

INTRODUCTION: We compared the economic impacts of linezolid and vancomycin for the treatment of hospitalized patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia. METHODS: We used a 4-week decision tree model incorporating published data and expert opinion on clinical parameters, resource use and costs (in 2012 US dollars), such as efficacy, mortality, serious adverse events, treatment duration and length of hospital stay. The results presented are from a US payer perspective. The base case first-line treatment duration for patients with MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia was 10 days. Clinical treatment success (used for the cost-effectiveness ratio) and failure due to lack of efficacy, serious adverse events or mortality were possible clinical outcomes that could impact costs. Cost of treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness per successfully treated patient were calculated for linezolid versus vancomycin. Univariate (one-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The model allowed us to calculate the total base case inpatient costs as $46,168 (linezolid) and $46,992 (vancomycin). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favored linezolid (versus vancomycin), with lower costs ($824 less) and greater efficacy (+2.7% absolute difference in the proportion of patients successfully treated for MRSA nosocomial pneumonia). Approximately 80% of the total treatment costs were attributed to hospital stay (primarily in the intensive care unit). The results of our probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that linezolid is the cost-effective alternative under varying willingness to pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: These model results show that linezolid has a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared to vancomycin for MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia, largely attributable to the higher clinical trial response rate of patients treated with linezolid. The higher drug acquisition cost of linezolid was offset by lower treatment failure-related costs and fewer days of hospitalization.

European perspective and update on the management of nosocomial pneumonia due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus after more than 10 years of experience with linezolid.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important cause of antimicrobial-resistant hospital-acquired infections worldwide and remains a public health priority in Europe. Nosocomial pneumonia (NP) involving MRSA often affects patients in intensive care units with substantial morbidity, mortality and associated costs. A guideline-based approach to empirical treatment with an antibacterial agent active against MRSA can improve the outcome of patients with MRSA NP, including those with ventilator-associated pneumonia. New methods may allow more rapid or sensitive diagnosis of NP or microbiological confirmation in patients with MRSA NP, allowing early de-escalation of treatment once the pathogen is known. In Europe, available antibacterial agents for the treatment of MRSA NP include the glycopeptides (vancomycin and teicoplanin) and linezolid (available as an intravenous or oral treatment). Vancomycin has remained a standard of care in many European hospitals; however, there is evidence that it may be a suboptimal therapeutic option in critically ill patients with NP because of concerns about its limited intrapulmonary penetration, increased nephrotoxicity with higher doses, as well as the emergence of resistant strains that may result in increased clinical failure. Linezolid has demonstrated high penetration into the epithelial lining fluid of patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia and shown statistically superior clinical efficacy versus vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA NP in a phase IV, randomized, controlled study. This review focuses on the disease burden and clinical management of MRSA NP, and the use of linezolid after more than 10 years of clinical experience.

Pharmacotherapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence for pharmacologic agents available in the treatment of nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) pneumonia. DATA SOURCES: A search of PubMed (1975-July 2012) was conducted using a combination of the terms methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, pneumonia, nosocomial, vancomycin, linezolid, telavancin, ceftaroline, tigecycline, and quinupristin/dalfopristin. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Randomized comparative clinical trials, meta-analyses, and review articles published in English were included. A manual review of the bibliographies of available literature was conducted and all relevant information was included. Observational and in vitro studies were incorporated as indicated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Pharmacotherapy for the treatment of nosocomial MRSA pneumonia is limited. Vancomycin has been the treatment of choice for several years. Linezolid has demonstrated similar efficacy to vancomycin in randomized clinical trials and recent data have suggested that it may be superior in some cases, although there are limitations to this conclusion. Telavancin has also demonstrated similar clinical efficacy to vancomycin; however, the drug is not commercially available in the US. Other agents with MRSA activity include ceftaroline, clindamycin, quinupristin/dalfopristin, and tigecycline, although the evidence for their use in nosocomial pneumonia is limited. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the currently available evidence and cost-effectiveness, vancomycin should continue to be the drug of choice for most patients with nosocomial MRSA pneumonia. Linezolid is a reasonable alternative for patients with treatment failure while receiving vancomycin, isolates with vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations over 2 µg/mL, allergic reactions, or vancomycin-induced nephrotoxicity.

Costs of nosocomial pneumonia caused by meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Nosocomial infections with meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) lead to increased health and economic costs. The purpose of this study was to determine costs for nosocomial MRSA pneumonia compared with meticillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) pneumonia. A case-control study was conducted with patients who acquired nosocomial pneumonia with either MRSA or MSSA between January 2005 and December 2007. Patients were matched for age, severity of underlying disease, stay on intensive care units and non-intensive care units, admission and discharge within the same year, and in-hospital stay at least as long as that of cases before MRSA pneumonia. Our analysis includes 82 patients (41 cases, 41 controls). The overall costs for patients with nosocomial MRSA pneumonia were significantly higher than for patients with MSSA pneumonia (€60,684 vs €38,731; P=0.01). The attributable costs for MRSA pneumonia per patient were €17,282 (P<0.001). The financial loss was higher for patients with MRSA pneumonia than for patients with MSSA pneumonia (€11,704 vs €2,662; P=0.002). More cases died than controls while in the hospital (13 vs 1 death, P<0.001). Hospital personnel should be aware of the attributable costs of MRSA pneumonia, and should implement control measures to prevent MRSA transmission.

Clinical and economic outcomes for patients with health care-associated Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia.

While the increasing importance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) as a pathogen in health care-associated S. aureus pneumonia has been documented widely, information on the clinical and economic consequences of such infections is limited. We retrospectively identified all patients admitted to a large U.S. urban teaching hospital between January 2005 and May 2008 with pneumonia and positive blood or respiratory cultures for S. aureus within 48 h of admission. Among these patients, those with suspected health care-associated pneumonia (HCAP) were identified using established criteria (e.g., recent hospitalization, admission from nursing home, or hemodialysis). Subjects were designated as having methicillin-resistant (MRSA) or methicillin-susceptible (MSSA) HCAP, based on initial S. aureus isolates. Initial therapy was designated "appropriate" versus "inappropriate" based on the expected susceptibility of the organism to the regimen received. We identified 142 patients with evidence of S. aureus HCAP. Their mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 64.5 (17) years. Eighty-seven patients (61%) had initial cultures that were positive for MRSA. Most ( approximately 90%) patients received appropriate initial antibiotic therapy (86% for MRSA versus 91% for MSSA; P = 0.783). There were no significant differences between MRSA and MSSA HCAP patients in mortality (29% versus 20%, respectively), surgery for pneumonia (22% versus 20%), receipt of mechanical ventilation (60% versus 58%), or admission to the intensive care unit (79% versus 76%). Mean (SD) total charges per admission were universally high ($98,170 [$94,707] for MRSA versus $104,121 [$91,314]) for MSSA [P = 0.712]). Almost two-thirds of patients admitted to hospital with S. aureus HCAP have evidence of MRSA infection. S. aureus HCAP, irrespective of MRSA versus MSSA status, is associated with significant mortality and high health care costs, despite appropriate initial antibiotic therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of linezolid vs vancomycin in suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The oxazolidinone antibiotic linezolid has demonstrated efficacy in treating infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). In a retrospective analysis of two prospective randomized clinical trials in patients with nosocomial pneumonia (NP), initial therapy with linezolid produced significantly better clinical cure and survival rates than vancomycin in the subset of patients with documented MRSA infection. This study was designed to evaluate the economic impact of these clinical outcomes from the perspective of the German health care system to determine the use of these regimens in the light of limited resources and rising costs. METHODS: A decision-analytic model using clinical trial data was developed to examine the costs and outcomes of treatment with linezolid or vancomycin in hospitalized patients with NP caused by suspected MRSA. The model followed an average patient from initiation of empiric treatment until treatment success, death, or second-line treatment failure. Local treatment patterns and resource use were obtained from a Delphi panel. Costs were taken from published sources. Outcomes included total cost per patient, cost per additional cure, cost per death avoided, and cost per life-year gained. RESULTS: The model calculated that linezolid was associated with an 8.7% higher cure rate compared with vancomycin (73.6% vs 64.9%, respectively). Average total costs per episode for linezolid- and vancomycin-treated patients were 12,829 and 12,409, respectively. Death rates were 13.2% lower with linezolid than with vancomycin (20.7% vs 33.9%), resulting in an average of 2.3 life-years gained per linezolid-treated patient in a 65-year-old cohort (14.0 life-years vs 11.7 life-years). With linezolid, incremental costs per death avoided and per patient cured were 3,171 and 4,813, respectively. The base case estimated a similar mean length of stay for both drugs (11.2 vs 10.8 days). One-way sensitivity analyses did not change the overall results. CONCLUSION: The model estimated a higher clinical cure (+8.7%) and survival (+13.2%) for linezolid compared with vancomycin at an incremental cost of 420 per treatment episode. The cost-benefit profile suggests that linezolid could be considered a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin in the treatment of patients with NP caused by suspected MRSA in Germany.

[Impact on morbidity and costs of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care patients]. / Effets sur la morbidité et les coûts des pneumopathies nosocomiales àStaphylococcus aureus résistant à la méthicilline en réanimation.

OBJECTIVES: Prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial infections in the intensive care units (ICU) has been recommended for several years. However, the workload and the costs of these programs are to be weighed against the benefit obtained in terms of reduction of morbidity and costs induced by the infection. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost and the current morbidity of the infection with MRSA in the ICU. METHODS: In a retrospective case-control study carried out in 2004, all patients of the 6 intensive care units of a teaching hospital having developed a MRSA nosocomial infection were included. They were paired with controls on the following criteria: department, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPSII), age (+/- 5 years), type of surgery (for the surgical intensive care units). The duration of hospitalization of the paired control had to be at least equal to the time from admission to infection of the infected patient. The costs were evaluated using the following parameters: scores omega 1, 2 and 3, duration of artificial ventilation, hemodialysis, length of ICU stay, radiological procedures, surgical procedures, total antibiotic cost and other expensive drugs. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients with MRSA infection were included. All had nosocomial pneumonia. The 21 paired patients were similar with regard to both initial criteria and sex. Hospital mortality was not different between the 2 groups (cases=8; controls=6; p=0.41), as well as median duration of hospital stay (cases=41 days; controls=43 days; p=0.9). The duration of mechanical ventilation, number of hemodialysis or hemofiltration sessions, number of radiological procedures were similar in both groups. The total omega score was not significantly different between cases (median 435; IQR: 218-579) and controls (median 281, IQR: 231-419; p=0.55). The median duration of isolation was 12 days for cases and 0 day for controls (p=0.0007). The pharmaceutical expenditure was significantly higher in cases (median: 1414euro; IQR: 795-4349), by comparison with the controls (median: 877euro, IQR: 687-2496) (p=0.049). CONCLUSION: In the ICU having set up a policy intended to reduce the risk of MRSA nosocomial infections, MRSA pneumonia does not seem to involve major additional morbidity, as compared to a control population matched for similar severity of illness. It increases modestly the use of the medical resources.

Attributable cost of methicillin resistance: an issue that is difficult to evaluate.

Estimating the consequences and the cost of methicillin resistance is a difficult challenge. Patients who develop methicillin-resistant ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are very different from those who develop methicillin-sensitive VAP, and biased estimates are frequent. We reviewed some important confounding factors of which the reader should be aware.

Morbidity and cost burden of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in early onset ventilator-associated pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: To gain a better understanding of the clinical and economic outcomes associated with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection in patients with early onset ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), we retrospectively analyzed a multihospital US database to identify patients with VAP over a 24 month period (2002-2003). METHOD: Data recorded included physiologic, laboratory, culture, and other clinical variables from 59 institutions. VAP was defined as new positive respiratory culture after at least 24 hours of mechanical ventilation (MV) and the presence of primary or secondary ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes of pneumonia. Outcomes measures included in-hospital morbidity and mortality for the population overall and after onset of VAP (duration of MV, intensive care unit [ICU] stay, in-hospital stay, and case mix and severity-adjusted operating cost). The overall cost was calculated at the hospital level using the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Cost/Charge Index for each calendar year. RESULTS: A total of 499 patients were identified as having VAP. S. aureus was the leading organism (31% of isolates). Patients with MRSA were significantly older than patients with methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA; median age 74 versus 67 years, P < 0.05) and more likely to be medical patients. Compared with MSSA patients, MRSA patients on average consumed excess resources of 4.4 (95% confidence interval 0.6-8.2) overall MV days, 3.8 (-0.5 to +8.0) days of inpatient length of stay (LOS), 5.3 (1.0-9.7) ICU days, and US7731 dollars (-US8393 dollars to +US23,856 dollars) total cost after controlling for case mix and other factors. Furthermore, MRSA patients needed excess resources after the onset of VAP (4.5 [95% confidence interval 1.0-8.1] MV days, 3.7 [-0.5 to +8.0] inpatient days, and 4.4 [0.4-8.4] ICU days) after controlling for the same case mix and admission severity covariates. CONCLUSION: S. aureus remains a common cause of VAP. VAP due to MRSA was associated with increased overall LOS, ICU LOS, and attributable ICU LOS compared with MSSA-related VAP. Although not statistically significant because of small sample size and large variation, the attributable excess costs of MRSA amounted to approximately US8000 dollars per case after controlling for case mix and severity.

Cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin in mechanical ventilation-associated nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus

Linezolid, an oxazolidinone-class antimicrobial agent, is a new drug; its use has frequently been questioned due to its high price. However, recent trials have demonstrated that the use of linezolid in mechanical ventilation-associated nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VAP-MRSA) may be justified due to its improved efficacy compared to vancomycin. Price and cost have different magnitudes, and clinical efficacy should always be considered in the decision-making process. Our objective was to determine whether linezolid treatment was more cost-effective than vancomycin for treating VAP-MRSA. METHODOLOGY: Elaboration of an economic model from a metanalysis of previous clinical trials comparing both drugs, through a cost-effectiveness analysis. Costs of the treatments were calculated using Brazilian parameters and were compared to the results obtained in the metanalysis. In order to compare the results with real life conditions, costs were calculated for both name brand and for generic vancomycin. RESULTS: The cost (May/2004) per unit (vial, ampoule or bag) was R$ 47.73 for the name-brand vancomycin, R$ 14.45 for generic vancomycin and R$ 214.04 for linezolid. Linezolid's efficacy in VAP-MRSA according to the metanalysis was 62.2 percent and vancomycin's efficacy was 21.2 percent. The total cost per cured patient was R$ 13,231.65 for the name-brand vancomycin, R$ 11,277.59 for generic vancomycin and R$ 7,764.72 for linezolid. CONCLUSION: Despite the higher price per unit, linezolid was more cost-effective than vancomycin.