Cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin for hospitalised patients with complicated skin and soft-tissue infections in Germany

Costs-effectiveness and cost components of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions affecting antibiotic resistance outcomes in hospital patients: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Limited information on costs and the cost-effectiveness of hospital interventions to reduce antibiotic resistance (ABR) hinder efficient resource allocation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review for studies evaluating the costs and cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions aimed at reducing, monitoring and controlling ABR in patients. Articles published until 12 December 2023 were explored using EconLit, EMBASE and PubMed. We focused on critical or high-priority bacteria, as defined by the WHO, and intervention costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we extracted unit costs, ICERs and essential study information including country, intervention, bacteria-drug combination, discount rates, type of model and outcomes. Costs were reported in 2022 US dollars ($), adopting the healthcare system perspective. Country willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds from Woods et al 2016 guided cost-effectiveness assessments. We assessed the studies reporting checklist using Drummond's method.

RESULTS

Among 20 958 articles, 59 (32 pharmaceutical and 27 non-pharmaceutical interventions) met the inclusion criteria. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as hygiene measures, had unit costs as low as $1 per patient, contrasting with generally higher pharmaceutical intervention costs. Several studies found that linezolid-based treatments for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were cost-effective compared with vancomycin (ICER up to $21 488 per treatment success, all 16 studies' ICERs

CONCLUSION

Robust information on ABR interventions is critical for efficient resource allocation. We highlight cost-effective strategies for mitigating ABR in hospitals, emphasising substantial knowledge gaps, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. Our study serves as a resource for guiding future cost-effectiveness study design and analyses.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020341827 and CRD42022340064.

Collapse

Key Words

• Control strategies
• Infections, diseases, disorders, injuries
• Prevention strategies
• Public Health
• Systematic review

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
• Checklist
• Drug Resistance, Microbial
• Hospitals
• Pharmaceutical Preparations

Collapse

Grants

• FONDECYT
• Asociación Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID)
• Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo ANID/FONDAP CIGIDEN
• National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Kasim Allel Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK Department of Health and Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
María José Hernández-Leal Department of Community, Maternity and Paediatric Nursing, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain Millennium Nucleus on Sociomedicine, Santiago, Chile
Nichola R Naylor Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK HCAI, Fungal, AMR, AMU & Sepsis Division, UK Health Security Agency, London, UK
Eduardo A Undurraga Escuela de Gobierno, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholars program, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gerard Joseph Abou Jaoude Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
Priyanka Bhandari Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Ellen Flanagan Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
Koen B Pouwels Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK The National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Laith Yakob Disease Control Department, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Collapse

Ceftaroline Fosamil for the Empiric Treatment of Hospitalized Adults with cSSTI: An Economic Analysis from the Perspective of the Spanish National Health System

Purpose

Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) are associated with high healthcare resource use and costs. The emergency nature of cSSTI hospitalizations requires starting immediate empiric intravenous (IV) antibiotic treatment, making the appropriate choice of initial antibiotic therapy crucial.

Patients and Methods

The use of ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other IV antibiotic therapies for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with cSSTI (vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin, cloxacillin, tedizolid) was evaluated through cost consequences analysis. The model structure was a decision tree accounting for four different pathways: patients demonstrating early response (ER) either discharged early (with oral antibiotic) or remaining in hospital to continue the initial therapy; non-responders either remaining on the initial IV therapy or switching to a second-line antibiotic. The model perspective was the Spanish National Health System.

Results

CFT resulted in average percentage of patients discharged early (PDE) of 24.6% (CI 19.49–30.2%) with average total cost per patient of €6763 (€6268–€7219). Vancomycin, linezolid, daptomycin and tedizolid resulted in average PDE of 22% (17.34–27.09%), 26.4% (20.5–32.32%), 28.6% (22.08–35.79%) and 26.5% (20.39–33.25%), respectively, for a total cost per patient of €6,619 (€5,902–€6,929), €6,394 (€5,881–€6,904), €6,855 (€5,800–€7,410) and €7,173 (€6,608–€7,763), respectively. Key model drivers were ER and antibiotic treatment duration, with hospital costs accounting for over 83% of the total expenditures.

Conclusion

Given its clinical and safety profile, CFT is an acceptable choice for cSSTI empiric therapy providing comparable ER and costs to other relevant antibiotic options.

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.

Optimizing skin and skin structure infection outcomes: considerations of cost of care

INTRODUCTION

Skin and skin structure infections (SSSIs) refer to a collection of clinical infectious syndromes involving layers of skin and associated soft tissues. Although associated with less morbidity and mortality than other common skin infections, SSSIs represent a significant increasing source of healthcare expense, with a prevalence of 500 episodes per 10,000 patient-years in the United States resulting in burdening health care systems, of approximately $6 billion annually.

AREAS COVERED

Opportunities to reduce costs of care associated with SSSI are highlighted, including transitions of care and avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions. Moreover, we reviewed new antibiotics (e.g. single dose glycopeptides), and the impact of consulting specialists in the emergency department on SSSI treatment outcomes.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

New healthcare models and payment strategies combined with new therapeutics are challenging norms of care. Newer drugs to treat skin infections can move a substantive percent of patients previously admitted to hospital care to the outpatient setting. Additionally, patients can be managed with oral or one time intravenous regimens, improving the likelihood of patient adherence and satisfaction. These variables need to be weighed against added acquisition costs and the development of thoughtful algorithms is needed to direct care and optimize treatment, cost, and patient satisfaction.

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of linezolid to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: a healthcare system perspective

OBJECTIVE

Few industry-independent studies have been conducted to compare the relative costs and benefits of drugs to treat methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. We performed a stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two treatment strategies-linezolid versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin-for the treatment of MRSA infection.

METHODS

We used cost and effectiveness data from a previously conducted clinical trial, complementing with other data from published literature, to compare the two regimens from a healthcare system perspective. Effectiveness was expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Several sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation, to measure the effect of potential parameter changes on the base-case model results, including potential differences related to type of infection and drug toxicity.

RESULTS

Treatment of MRSA infection with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin and linezolid were found to cost on average €146 and €2536, and lead to a gain of 0.916 and 0.881 QALYs, respectively. Treatment with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin was found to be more cost-effective than linezolid in the base case and remained dominant over linezolid in most alternative scenarios, including different types of MRSA infection and potential disadvantages in terms of toxicity. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0, €50 000 and €200 000 per QALY gained, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin was dominant in 100%, 96% and 85% of model iterations. A 95% discount on the current purchasing price of linezolid would be needed when it goes off-patent for it to represent better value for money compared with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined treatment of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole plus rifampicin is more cost-effective than linezolid in the treatment of MRSA infection.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update of this review we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 March 2015; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

No new trials were identified for this first update. We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

Cost-effectiveness and pricing of antibacterial drugs

Growing resistance to antibacterial agents has increased the need for the development of new drugs to treat bacterial infections. Given increasing pressure on limited health budgets, it is important to study the cost-effectiveness of these drugs, as well as their safety and efficacy, to find out whether or not they provide value for money and should be reimbursed. In this article, we systematically reviewed 38 cost-effectiveness analyses of new antibacterial agents. Most studies showed the new antibacterial drugs were cost-effective compared to older generation drugs. Drug pricing is a complicated process, involving different stakeholders, and has a large influence on cost-effectiveness. Value-based pricing is a method to determine the price of a drug at which it can be cost-effective. It is currently unclear what the influence of value-based pricing will be on the prices of new antibacterial agents, but an important factor will be the definition of ‘value’, which as well as the impact of the drug on patient health might also include other factors such as wider social impact and the health impact of disease.

Profile of tedizolid phosphate and its potential in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Tedizolid phosphate is the first once-daily oxazolidinone approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). It is more potent in vitro than linezolid against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and other gram-positive pathogens causing ABSSSI, even retaining activity against some linezolid-resistant strains. Tedizolid is approximately 90% protein bound, leading to lower free-drug concentrations than linezolid. The impact of the effect of food, renal or hepatic insufficiency, or hemodialysis on tedizolid's pharmacokinetic have been evaluated, and no dosage adjustment is needed in these populations. In animal and clinical studies, tedizolid's effect on bacterial killing is optimized by the free-drug area under the curve to minimum inhibitory concentration ratio (fAUC/MIC). The 200 mg once-daily dose is able to achieve the target fAUC/MIC ratio in 98% of simulated patients. Two Phase III clinical trials have demonstrated the noninferiority of tedizolid 200 mg once daily for 6 days to linezolid 600 mg twice daily for 10 days. In vitro, animal, and clinical studies have failed to demonstrate that tedizolid inhibits monoamine oxidase to a clinically relevant extent. Tedizolid has several key advantages over linezolid including once daily dosing, decreased treatment duration, minimal interaction with serotonergic agents, possibly associated with less adverse events associated with the impairment of mitochondrial protein synthesis (eg, myelosuppression, lactic acidosis, and peripheral/optic neuropathies), and retains in vitro activity against linezolid-resistant gram-positive bacteria. Economic analyses with tedizolid are needed to describe the cost-effectiveness of this agent compared with other options used for ABSSSI, particularly treatment options active against MRSA.

Economic features of antibiotic resistance: the case of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

This paper analyses and updates the economic information regarding methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), including information that has been previously reviewed by other authors, and new information, for the purpose of facilitating health management and clinical decisions. The analysed articles reveal great disparity in the economic burden on MRSA patients; this is mainly due to the diversity of the designs of the studies, as well as the variability of the patients and the differences in health care systems. Regarding prophylactic strategies, the studies do not provide conclusive results that could unambiguously orientate health management. The studies addressing treatments noted that linezolid seems to be a cost-effective treatment for MRSA, mostly because it is associated with a shorter length of stay (LOS) in hospital. However, important variables such as antimicrobial susceptibility, infection type and resistance emergence should be included in these analyses before a conclusion is reached regarding which treatment is the best (most efficient). The reviewed studies found that rapid MRSA detection, using molecular techniques, is an efficient technique to control MRSA. As a general conclusion, the management of MRSA infections implicates important economic costs for hospitals, as they result in higher direct costs and longer LOS than those related to methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) patients or MRSA-free patients; there is wide variability in those increased costs, depending on different variables. Moreover, the research reveals a lack of studies on other related topics, such as the economic implications of changes in MRSA epidemiology (community patients and lineages associated with farm animals).

Resource use in patients hospitalized with complicated skin and soft tissue infections in Europe and analysis of vulnerable groups: the REACH study

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized patients with complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) present a substantial economic burden, and resource use can vary according to the presence of comorbidities, choice of antibiotic agent, and the requirement for initial treatment modification. REACH (NCT01293435) was a retrospective, observational study aimed at collecting empirical data on current (year 2010-2011) management strategies of cSSTI in 10 European countries.

METHODS

Patients (n = 1995) were aged ≥18 years, hospitalized with a cSSTI and receiving intravenous antibiotics. Data, collected via electronic Case Report Forms, detailed patient characteristics, medical history, disease characteristics, microbiological diagnosis, disease course and outcomes, treatments before and during hospitalization, and health resource consumption.

RESULTS

For the analysis population, mean length of hospital stay (including duration of hospitalizations for patients with recurrences) was 18.5 days (median 12.0). Increased length of hospital stay was found for patients with comorbidities vs those without (mean = 19.9; [median = 14.0] days vs 13.3 [median = 8.0] days), for patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus compared with patients with methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (mean = 27.7 [median = 19.5] days vs 18.4 [median = 13.0] days) and for patients requiring surgery (mean = 24.4 [median = 16.0] days vs 15.0 [median = 11.0] days). Patients requiring modification of their initial antibiotic treatment had an associated increase in mean length of hospital stay of 10.9 days (median = 6.5) and additional associated hospital resource use. A multivariate analysis confirmed the association of nosocomial infections, comorbidities, directed treatment, recurrent infections, diabetes, recent surgery, and older age (≥65 years), with longer hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides real-life data on factors that are expected to impact length of hospital stay, to guide clinical decision-making to improve outcomes, and reduce resource use in patients with cSSTI.

Cost analysis of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis among patients with haematological disorders in Germany and Spain

Background

The current healthcare climate demands pharmacoeconomic evaluations for different treatment strategies incorporating drug acquisition costs, costs incurred for hospitalisation, drug administration and preparation, diagnostic and laboratory testing and drug-related adverse events (AEs). Here we evaluate the pharmacoeconomics of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B as first-line therapies for invasive aspergillosis (IA) in patients with haematological malignancy and prolonged neutropenia or who were undergoing haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in Germany or Spain.

Methods

A decision analytic model based on a decision tree was constructed to estimate the potential treatment costs of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B. Each model pathway was defined by the probability of an event occurring and the costs of clinical outcomes. Outcome probabilities and cost inputs were derived from the published literature, clinical trials, expert panels and local database costs. In the base case, patients who failed to respond to first-line therapy were assumed to experience a single switch between comparator drugs or the other drug was added as second-line treatment. Base-case evaluation included only drug-management costs and additional hospitalisation costs due to severe AEs associated with first- and second-line therapies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Cost estimates were inflated to 2011 euros (€).

Results

Based on clinical trial success rates of 52.8% (voriconazole) and 50.0% (liposomal amphotericin B), voriconazole had lower total treatment costs compared with liposomal amphotericin B in both Germany (€12,256 versus €18,133; length of therapy [LOT] = 10-day intravenous [IV] + 5-day oral voriconazole and 15-day IV liposomal amphotericin B) and Spain (€8,032 versus €10,516; LOT = 7-day IV + 8-day oral voriconazole and 15-day IV liposomal amphotericin B). Assuming the same efficacy (50.0%) in first-line therapy, voriconazole maintained a lower total treatment cost compared with liposomal amphotericin B. Cost savings were primarily due to the lower drug acquisition costs and shorter IV LOT associated with voriconazole. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were sensitive to drug price, particularly the cost of liposomal amphotericin B.

Conclusions

Voriconazole is likely to be cost-saving compared with liposomal amphotericin B when used as a first-line treatment for IA in Germany and Spain.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013 we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

Cost comparison of linezolid versus vancomycin for treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infection caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Quebec

BACKGROUND

In Canada, complicated skin and skin-structure infection (cSSSI) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is usually treated with antibiotics in hospital, with a follow-up course at home for stable patients. The cost implications of using intravenous and oral linezolid instead of intravenous vancomycin in Canadian clinical practice have not been examined.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the potential treatment cost impact for the Quebec health care system of linezolid versus vancomycin for MRSA-related cSSSI therapy, using a net impact analysis approach.

METHODS

Health care resource use associated with linezolid and vancomycin therapy was estimated for patients in Quebec, based on expert opinion. Costs were assigned to health care resources (antibiotics, medical supplies, laboratory testing and health care professional time) based on unit prices. The base-case analysis assumed 14 days of antibiotic treatment for both agents; five days in hospital followed by nine days at home. Therapy duration, length of inpatient treatment and discharge rates were varied in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Antibiotic costs were higher for linezolid than for vancomycin, for both inpatient ($874 versus $144, respectively) and outpatient therapy ($1,356 versus $1,242, respectively). Compared with vancomycin, lower costs for antibiotic preparation, administration and monitoring of linezolid offset drug acquisition costs. Total treatment costs were $3,850 for linezolid versus $5,189 for vancomycin. Results were sensitive to the number of treatment days spent at home and the discharge rate.

CONCLUSION

Using linezolid instead of vancomycin to treat MRSA-related cSSSI, for hospital and home courses combined, may reduce health care resource utilization and costs in Quebec.

Economic burden of inpatient and outpatient antibiotic treatment for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus complicated skin and soft-tissue infections: a comparison of linezolid, vancomycin, and daptomycin

Background

Previous economic analyses evaluating treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and soft-tissue infections (cSSTI) failed to include all direct treatment costs such as outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT). Our objective was to develop an economic model from a US payer perspective that includes all direct inpatient and outpatient costs incurred by patients with MRSA cSSTI receiving linezolid, vancomycin, or daptomycin.

Methods

A 4-week decision model was developed for this economic analysis. Published literature and database analyses with validation by experts provided clinical, resource use, and cost inputs on data such as efficacy rate, length of stay, adverse events, and OPAT services. Base-case analysis assumed equal efficacy and equal length of stay for treatments. We conducted several sensitivity analyses where assumptions on resource use or efficacy were varied. Costs were reported in year-end 2011 US dollars.

Results

Total treatment costs in the base-case were lower for linezolid ($10,571) than vancomycin ($11,096), and daptomycin ($13,612). Inpatient treatment costs were $740 more, but outpatient costs, $1,266 less with linezolid than vancomycin therapy due to a switch to oral linezolid when the patient was discharged. Compared with daptomycin, both inpatient and outpatient treatment costs were lower with linezolid by $87 and $2,954 respectively. In sensitivity analyses, linezolid had lower costs compared with vancomycin and daptomycin when using differential length of stay data from a clinical trial, and using success rates from a meta-analysis. In a scenario without peripherally inserted central catheter line costs, linezolid became slightly more expensive than vancomycin (by $285), but remained less costly than daptomycin (by $2,316).

Conclusion

Outpatient costs of managing MRSA cSSTI may be reduced by 30%–50% with oral linezolid compared with vancomycin or daptomycin. Results from this analysis support potential economic benefit and cost savings of using linezolid versus traditional OPAT when total inpatient and outpatient medical costs are evaluated.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections

BACKGROUND

The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013 we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

Clinical update on linezolid in the treatment of Gram-positive bacterial infections

Gram-positive pathogens are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in both community and health care settings. Glycopeptides have traditionally been the antibiotics of choice for multiresistant Gram-positive pathogens but there are problems with their use, including the emergence of glycopeptide-resistant strains, tissue penetration, and achieving and monitoring adequate serum levels. Newer antibiotics such as linezolid, a synthetic oxazolidinone, are available for the treatment of resistant Gram-positive bacteria. Linezolid is active against a wide range of Gram-positive bacteria and has been generally available for the treatment of Gram-positive infections since 2000. There are potential problems with linezolid use, including its bacteriostatic action and the relatively high incidence of reported adverse effects, particularly with long-term use. Long-term use may also be complicated by the development of resistance. However, linezolid has been shown to be clinically useful in the treatment of several serious infections where traditionally bacteriocidal agents have been required and many of its adverse effects are reversible on cessation. It has also been shown to be a cost-effective treatment option in several studies, with its high oral bioavailability allowing an early change from intravenous to oral formulations with consequent earlier patient discharge and lower inpatient costs.

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

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.

Efficacy and safety of linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and soft tissue infection (cSSTI): a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical and microbiological outcomes of linezolid versus vancomycin in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) complicated skin and soft-tissue infection (cSSTI) using a meta-analysis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Clinical trials were identified using PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception to March 2009. Primary outcomes evaluated resolution of signs and symptoms of infection in clinically evaluable (CE) patients, and microbiological eradication in both the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) and MRSA evaluable (MRSA ME) patients. MITT patients had a culture-confirmed Gram-positive pathogen (S. aureus) at baseline. Secondary outcomes included mortality, adverse drug reactions (ADR), and discontinuation due to ADRs. The Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the fixed effects model based on the assumption that there was little to no heterogeneity between the studies in the primary analysis. Sensitivity analyses were performed for each outcome by removing the most weighted study.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 2652 patients (1361/linezolid; 1291/vancomycin) were identified. Resolution of infection in CE patients (OR = 1.41; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.95) and MITT patients (OR = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.33, 2.76) favored the use of linezolid over vancomycin, but did not remain significant after sensitivity analyses (CE: OR = 1.29; 95% CI: 0.81, 2.05; MITT: OR = 1.73; 95% CI: 0.87, 3.41). Microbiological eradication in MRSA ME patients consistently favored the use of linezolid over vancomycin (OR = 2.90; 95% CI: 1.90, 4.41). No difference in mortality was observed between the two groups (OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.62). Higher proportions of linezolid patients were found to have diarrhea (119/1361 vs. 52/1291), nausea (102/1361 vs. 46/1291) and thrombocytopenia (54/1121 vs. 8/1071), whereas a higher proportion of vancomycin patients were found to have renal insufficiency compared to linezolid (16/634 vs. 4/703). Inconsistent results were seen with the incidence of anemia and rash between the base-case (anemia: OR = 1.36; 95% CI: 0.90, 2.08; rash: OR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.68) and sensitivity analyses (anemia: OR = 2.33; 95% CI: 1.24, 4.37; rash: OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.12, 2.71). Discontinuation due to ADRs was not statistically different between linezolid and vancomycin (OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.51).

CONCLUSION

Resolution of infection in CE and MITT patients were inconsistent; however, a sub-analysis revealed that linezolid was more likely to consistently achieve microbiologic eradication in MRSA ME patients. Apparent risks of thrombocytopenia, nausea, diarrhea, and possibly anemia may limit linezolid use in treating MRSA cSSTI. This study was limited due to an inability to assess for the effects of hetero-resistance and appropriate vancomycin dosing on outcomes. Moreover, the small number of studies made controlling for heterogeneity challenging.