Cost-effectiveness comparison of cefepime and ceftazidime using decision analysis

Cefepime

Cefepime (Maxipime), Maxcef, Cepimax, Cepimex, Axepim, a parenteral fourth-generation cephalosporin, is active against many organisms causative in pneumonia. Cefepime has in vitro activity against Gram-positive organisms including Staphylococcus aureus and penicillin-sensitive, -intermediate and -resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae similar to that of cefotaxime and ceftriaxone. Cefepime also has good activity against Gram-negative organisms, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, similar to that of ceftazidime. Importantly, cefepime is stable against many of the common plasmid- and chromosome-mediated beta-lactamases and is a poor inducer of AmpC beta-lactamases. As a result, it retains activity against Enterobacteriaceae that are resistant to third-generation cephalosporins, such as derepressed mutants of Enterobacter spp. Cefepime may be hydrolyzed by the extended-spectrum beta-lactamases produced by some members of the Enterobacteriaceae, but to a lesser extent than the third-generation cephalosporins. Monotherapy with cefepime 1 or 2g, usually administered intravenously twice daily, was as effective for clinical and bacteriological response as ceftazidime, ceftriaxone or cefotaxime monotherapy (1 or 2g two or three times daily) in a number of randomized, clinical trials in hospitalized adult, or less commonly, pediatric, patients with generally moderate to severe community-acquired or nosocomial pneumonia. More limited data indicated that monotherapy with cefepime 2g three times daily was also as effective in treating patients with nosocomial pneumonia as imipenem/cilostatin 0.5g four times daily, and when combined with amikacin, cefepime was as effective as ceftazidime plus amikacin. Patients with pneumonia who failed to respond to previous antibacterial therapy with penicillins or other cephalosporins responded to treatment with cefepime. Cefepime is generally well tolerated, with a tolerability profile similar to those of other parenteral cephalosporins. In clinical trials, the majority of adverse events experienced by cefepime recipients were mild to moderate and reversible. The most common adverse events with a causal relationship to cefepime reported in clinical trials included rash and diarrhea. Other, less common, adverse events included pruritus, urticaria, nausea, vomiting oral candidiasis, colitis, headache, fever, erythema and vaginitis.

CONCLUSION

Cefepime is an established and generally well tolerated parenteral drug with a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity which, when administered twice daily, provides coverage of most of the pathogens that may be causative in pneumonia. In randomized clinical trials in hospitalized patients with generally moderate to severe community-acquired or nosocomial pneumonia, cefepime monotherapy exhibited good clinical and bacteriological efficacy. Cefepime may become a preferred antibacterial agent for infections caused by Enterobacter spp. With prudent use in order to prevent the emergence of resistant organisms, cefepime will continue to be a suitable option for the empiric treatment of pneumonia.

Changes in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics after cefepime shortage: a time series analysis

The original cefepime product was withdrawn from the Swiss market in January 2007 and replaced by a generic 10 months later. The goals of the study were to assess the impact of this cefepime shortage on the use and costs of alternative broad-spectrum antibiotics, on antibiotic policy, and on resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa toward carbapenems, ceftazidime, and piperacillin-tazobactam. A generalized regression-based interrupted time series model assessed how much the shortage changed the monthly use and costs of cefepime and of selected alternative broad-spectrum antibiotics (ceftazidime, imipenem-cilastatin, meropenem, piperacillin-tazobactam) in 15 Swiss acute care hospitals from January 2005 to December 2008. Resistance of P. aeruginosa was compared before and after the cefepime shortage. There was a statistically significant increase in the consumption of piperacillin-tazobactam in hospitals with definitive interruption of cefepime supply and of meropenem in hospitals with transient interruption of cefepime supply. Consumption of each alternative antibiotic tended to increase during the cefepime shortage and to decrease when the cefepime generic was released. These shifts were associated with significantly higher overall costs. There was no significant change in hospitals with uninterrupted cefepime supply. The alternative antibiotics for which an increase in consumption showed the strongest association with a progression of resistance were the carbapenems. The use of alternative antibiotics after cefepime withdrawal was associated with a significant increase in piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem use and in overall costs and with a decrease in susceptibility of P. aeruginosa in hospitals. This warrants caution with regard to shortages and withdrawals of antibiotics.

Direct costs in patients hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia after non-response to outpatient treatment with macrolide antibacterials in the US

INTRODUCTION

Antibacterial cost-containment programmes emphasise the use of narrow-spectrum generic agents whenever possible. The use of these agents is driven by their lower purchase prices; the consequences of treatment failure are rarely considered. This study was conducted to identify the costs of treating patients hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) associated with Streptococcus pneumoniae following failure to respond to outpatient treatment with macrolide antibacterials.

METHODS

A multicentre, retrospective, observational study was performed in patients with CAP due to S. pneumoniae who were admitted to 31 North American hospitals following a lack of response to >or=2 days of outpatient treatment with a macrolide antibacterial. Direct medical costs (year 2004 values) of infection-related hospital resources, including antibacterials (purchase, preparation, dispensing, administration and monitoring), diagnostic tests, therapeutic procedures, treatment of adverse events and therapeutic failures, and hospitalisation per diem (ward, critical care and ventilator days), were analysed. Total hospital costs were then compared with standard diagnosis-related group (DRG) reimbursement.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients were enrolled. Patients were frequently bacteraemic (52%) and infected with macrolide-resistant strains of S. pneumoniae (71%). Initial inpatient antibacterial treatment was not successful in 17 patients (14%) and seven patients (5.7%) died. The mean length of stay was 8.7 days (SD 7) including 1.3 days (SD 2.9) in a critical care unit and 1.4 days (SD 4.4) of mechanical ventilation. The mean cost of hospitalisation was US dollars 12,678 (SD 13 346) but standard DRG reimbursement averaged only US dollars 8,634.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who do not respond to outpatient treatment with a macrolide antibacterial and who are subsequently hospitalised with CAP caused by S. pneumoniae are likely to be infected with a non-susceptible strain, are frequently bacteraemic, are at an increased risk for mortality compared with previously published estimates in patients with CAP due to S. pneumoniae, and incur hospital costs that far exceed standard DRG reimbursement for CAP.

Cefepime versus ceftazidime: considerations for empirical use in critically ill patients

Sepsis and nosocomial infections continue to be a significant problem in intensive care, contributing heavily to mortality and prolonged hospital stay. Early and appropriate antibiotic therapy is critical for optimising outcomes. However, the emergence of highly resistant bacteria, coupled with reduced development of novel antibiotics, means that there is a real threat of development of untreatable nosocomial infections. Cefepime and ceftazidime are broad-spectrum cephalosporins that are widely used to treat Gram-negative nosocomial infections in critically ill patients. Available data suggest that cefepime may have advantages over ceftazidime owing to a broader spectrum of activity and reduced potential for development of bacterial resistance. However, whether either of these agents is superior can only be determined by a head-to-head study evaluating clinical and bacteriological outcomes. Such a study to determine whether apparent differences translate into clinically relevant differences in outcome is indicated.

Economics of antibiotic use policies

Today more than ever, hospitals must effectively manage the use of antibiotics to control costs and preserve their usefulness. To achieve this goal, antibiotic management must evolve from overly simplistic antibiotic cost containment to more complex, multidisciplinary, appropriate use programs that are founded on clinical outcomes-based pharmacoeconomic analyses. This article addresses common cost-containment activities as they relate to antibiotics and examines their consequences. Examples of successful antimicrobial stewardship and the role of pharmacoeconomic analyses also are provided. Cost-effectiveness studies of cefepime are presented to illustrate the utility of these analyses and provide information that can form the basis for decisions regarding placement of cefepime on hospital formularies.

Decision analysis of antibiotic and diagnostic strategies in ventilator-associated pneumonia

The optimal strategy for ventilator-associated pneumonia remains controversial. To clarify the tradeoffs involved, we performed a decision analysis. Strategies evaluated included antibiotic therapy with and without diagnostic testing. Tests that were explored included endotracheal aspirates, bronchoscopy with protected brush or bronchoalveolar lavage, and nonbronchoscopic mini-bronchoalveolar lavage (mini-BAL). Outcomes included dollar cost, antibiotic use, survival, cost-effectiveness, antibiotic use per survivor, and the outcome perspective of financial cost-antibiotic use per survivor. Initial coverage with three antibiotics was better than expectant management or one or two antibiotic approaches, leading to both improved survival (54% vs. 66%) and decreased cost (US dollars 55447 vs. US dollars 41483 per survivor). Testing with mini-BAL did not improve survival but did decrease costs (US dollars 41483 vs. US dollars 39967) and antibiotic use (63 vs. 39 antibiotic days per survivor). From the perspective of minimizing cost, minimizing antibiotic use, and maximizing survival, the best strategy was three antibiotics with mini-BAL.

Pitfalls associated with commonly used methods for pharmacoeconomic analyses

Demonstrating the economic value of treatment has become an important objective of many clinical trials. Awareness of the limitations of the methods used in pharmacoeconomic studies of infectious diseases will help in understanding why improved methods are needed to adequately describe the costs associated with infectious episodes. Current analyses generally consider three levels of cost and use three methods to determine costs associated with an infectious episode. However, these costs and the methods for obtaining them may not be appropriate in all studies. Future pharmacoeconomic research needs to adhere to established principles but embrace new methodologies to improve the validity and usefulness of these studies.

Cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime by continuous infusion versus intermittent infusion for nosocomial pneumonia

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine if continuous-infusion ceftazidime is more cost-effective and efficacious than intermittent infusion in patients with nosocomial pneumonia.

DESIGN

Prospective, open-label, randomized trial.

SETTING

Large, community teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with nosocomial pneumonia.

INTERVENTIONS

Ceftazidime 3 g/day was administered as a continuous infusion or as 2 g 3 times/day by intermittent infusion to treat nosocomial pneumonia in the ICU. Patients also received tobramycin 7 mg/kg once/day.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were evaluable; 17 received continuous infusion and 18 intermittent infusion. Clinical efficacy (94% and 83% successful outcomes with continuous and intermittent infusion, respectively), adverse events, and length of stay did not vary significantly between groups. Costs associated with continuous infusion, $627 +/- 388, were significantly lower (p < or = 0.001) than with intermittent infusion, $1007 +/- 430.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous infusion of ceftazidime is a cost-effective alternative to intermittent infusion for nosocomial pneumonia in the ICU.

Cost effectiveness of cephalosporin monotherapy and aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. For the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative cost effectiveness of cephalosporin monotherapy options and aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy for the treatment of febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from the institutional perspective.

METHODS

The analysis was based on 741 febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia enrolled in 5 randomised trials: 3 comparing monotherapy with ceftazidime or cefepime, and 2 comparing cefepime monotherapy versus aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. Resource utilisation included costs for study antibacterials, treatment of adverse effects and failures, and hospitalisation. The primary end-point was the overall cost of treatment per patient. Cost-effectiveness ratios were also analysed.

RESULTS

No significant differences in clinical success rates were detected. Median per-patient costs in the monotherapy comparisons were $US7849 for cefepime and $US7788 for ceftazidime [1997 values; not significantly different (NS)]. Corresponding costs for the monotherapy versus combination therapy comparisons were $US9780 for cefepime and $US10 159 for gentamicin/ureidopenicillin (NS). Despite a higher acquisition cost for cefepime, there were no statistically significant differences in cost effectiveness compared with either ceftazidime monotherapy or gentamicin/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. Sensitivity analyses revealed that monotherapy can be cost effective compared with combination therapy in many situations.

CONCLUSION

There were no economic differences between the 3 regimens tested. Therefore drug cost should not be a deciding factor when choosing antibacterial therapy for the treatment of febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia.

Success rates and cost-effectiveness of antibiotic combinations for initial treatment of central-venous-line infections during total parenteral nutrition

BACKGROUND

Central-venous-line infections can be successfully treated with appropriate antibiotics, thus avoiding the need for catheter removal. Based on our experience, vancomycin, gentamicin, piperacillin, ceftazidime, and amphotericin, alone or in combination, are usually administered, pending sensitivity results. This empirical list, however, has never been verified against actual sensitivity results nor has it been tested for cost or efficacy.

METHODS

Medical records of inpatients on hyperalimentation over 1 year were reviewed. Success rate, therapy duration, and drug acquisition cost and charge were assessed for central-venous-line infections. Antibiotics then were paired and evaluated in terms of charge and efficacy against all microorganisms as determined by sensitivity results.

RESULTS

In 500 inpatients receiving hyperalimentation for 9,698 patient-days, 8.4 central-venous-line infections/1,000 patient-days occurred. Staphylococcus non-aureus, Candida species, Enterococcus faecium, and Staphylococcus aureus predominantly were isolated. Of the infections, 51 (67%) were sensitive to one or more of the initial antibiotics. A 2-week course of antibiotics successfully treated 50 (66%) catheter infections without line removal. Appropriate initial therapy on average reduced treatment duration by 8 to 10 days and drug charges by $400 to $700.

CONCLUSIONS

Amikacin-vancomycin appears to be the most cost-effective selection for presumed central-venous-line infections, pending sensitivity results, followed by valid alternatives. Lower failure rates are well worth the extra cost in pharmaceutical charges.

Decision analysis modelling of costs and outcomes following cefepime monotherapy in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative cost of treatment and intermediate outcomes (percentage resistant organisms, days in hospital, etc) among cefepime and alternative parenteral antibiotics used for empiric monotherapy.

DESIGN

Decision analysis model, based on published literature, clinical trial results and information from infectious disease clinicians.

SETTING

A Canadian tertiary care hospital.

INTERVENTION

Comparison of cefepime, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, skin/soft tissue infections, septicemia and febrile neutropenia.

MAIN RESULTS

Cefepime treatment results in the lowest average cost per patient when used as initial empiric therapy for lower respiratory tract infections and for skin/soft tissue infections. Cefepime therapy is among the lowest cost treatments for the other infectious disease conditions and has the lowest cost for a weighted 'average' condition. Sensitivity analysis indicates that model results are most sensitive to duration of hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial empiric monotherapy with cefepime for serious infectious disease conditions may result in cost savings compared with alternative parenteral agents.