nach oben

The European Journal of Health Economics

Erschienen in:

01.04.2012 | Original Paper

Treating pneumonia in critical care in the United Kingdom following failure of initial antibiotic: a cost-utility analysis comparing meropenem with piperacillin/tazobactam

verfasst von: Steven J. Edwards, Sarah Wordsworth, Mike J. Clarke

Erschienen in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Ausgabe 2/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Treating patients admitted to critical care with severe pneumonia requires timely intervention with an effective antibiotic. This reduces the risk of dying of pneumonia and minimises complications associated with a prolonged stay in critical care.

Objective

To compare the cost-effectiveness of meropenem 1 g/8 h with piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5 g/8 h for treating pneumonia in UK critical care.

Methods

A Markov model was built to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of using meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam to treat severe pneumonia. Estimates of effectiveness, utility weights and costs were obtained from published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to address uncertainty in the model results.

Results

Cost of treating a patient with severe pneumonia was estimated as £19,026 with meropenem and £19,978 with piperacillin/tazobactam, respectively. QALYs gained were 4.768 with meropenem and 4.654 with piperacillin/tazobactam. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed meropenem to be consistently less costly and more effective than piperacillin/tazobactam.

Conclusion

The additional efficacy of meropenem translates into more patients surviving critical care and leaving this high-cost service more quickly than if they had been treated with piperacillin/tazobactam. As meropenem is more effective and less expensive than piperacillin/tazobactam at treating patients with severe pneumonia, it is the dominant treatment option.

Welch, C.: Personal Communication (February 2009). Case Mix Programme Database (ICNARC, Tavistock House, Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9HR)

Armitage, K., Woodhead, M.: New guidelines for the management of adult community-acquired pneumonia. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 20, 170–176 (2007)PubMedCrossRef

American Thoracic Society.: Hospital-acquired pneumonia in adults: diagnosis, assessment of severity, initial antimicrobial therapy, and preventative strategies. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care. Med. 153, 1711–1725 (1995)

American Thoracic Society.: Guidelines for the management of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care. Med. 163 1730–1750 (2001)

American Thoracic Society.: Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare associated pneumonia. Am. J. Respir Crit. Care Med. 171 388–416 (2005)

British Thoracic Society.: BTS guideline for the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults—2004 update. Available at: www.brit-thoracic.org.uk/Clinical-Information/Pneumonia/Pneumonia-Guidelines.aspx (last Accessed Nov 2009)

Bodmann, K.F.: Current guidelines for the treatment of severe pneumonia and sepsis. Chemotherapy 51, 227–233 (2005)PubMedCrossRef

Edwards, S.J., Campbell, H.E., Plumb, J.M.: A cost-utility analysis comparing meropenem with imipenem plus cilastatin in the treatment of severe infections in intensive care. Eur. J. Health Econ. 7, 72–78 (2006)PubMedCrossRef

Edwards, S.J., Clarke, M.J., Wordsworth, S., et al.: Carbapenems versus other beta-lactams in treating severe infections in intensive care: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 27, 531–543 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

10.

Edwards, S.J., Clarke, M.J., Wordsworth, S., et al.: Indirect comparisons of treatments based on systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Intern. J. Clin. Pract. 63, 841–854 (2009)CrossRef

11.

Edwards, S.J., Clarke, M.J., Wordsworth, S., et al.: Carbapenems versus other beta-lactams in the treatment of hospitalised patients with infection: a mixed treatment comparison. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 25, 251–261 (2009)PubMedCrossRef

12.

Weber, R.J., Kane, S.L., Oriolo, V.A., et al.: Impact of intensive care unit (ICU) drug use on hospital costs: a descriptive analysis, with recommendations for optimizing ICU pharmacotherapy. Crit. Care Med. 31(1 Suppl), S17–S24 (2003)PubMedCrossRef

13.

Rello, J., Bodi, M., Mariscal, D., et al.: Microbiological testing and outcome of patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia. Chest 123, 174–180 (2003)PubMedCrossRef

14.

McFarland, L.V., Surawicz, C.M.: Risk factors for Clostridium difficile carriage, C difficile-associated diarrhea in a cohort of hospitalised patients. J. Infect. Dis. 162, 678–684 (1990)PubMedCrossRef

15.

Poutanen, S.M., Simor, A.E.: Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults. CMAJ 171, 51–58 (2004)PubMedCrossRef

16.

Chastre, J., Wolff, M., Fagon, J.-Y., et al.: Comparison of 8 vs 15 days of antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults. JAMA 290, 2588–2598 (2003)PubMedCrossRef

17.

Rello, J., Ollendorf, D.A., Oster, G., et al.: Epidemiology and outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia in a large US database. Chest 122, 2115–2121 (2002)PubMedCrossRef

18.

Hyllienmark, P., Gårdlund, B., Persson, J.-O., et al.: Nosocomial pneumonia in the ICU: a prospective cohort study. Scand. J. Infect. Dis. 39, 676–682 (2007)PubMedCrossRef

19.

Rello, J., Diaz, E., Roque, M., et al.: Risk factors for developing pneumonia within 48 hours of intubation. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 159, 1742–1746 (1999)PubMed

20.

Das, R.: Critical care admissions for pneumonia in England. Value Health 7, A431 (2009)CrossRef

21.

Office for National Statistics.: Mortality statistics—death registered in 2007. Newport: ONS, 2007. Available at: www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=15096 (last Accessed July 2009)

22.

Wright, J.C., Plenderleith, L., Ridley, S.A.: Long-term survival following intensive care: subgroup analysis and comparison with the general population. Anaesthesia 58, 637–642 (2003)PubMedCrossRef

23.

Rosenberg, A.L., Watts, C.: Patients readmitted to ICUs: a systematic review of risk factors and outcomes. Chest 118, 492–502 (2000)PubMedCrossRef

24.

Rosenberg, A.L., Hofer, T.P., Hayward, R.A., et al.: Who bounces back? Physiological and other predictors of intensive care unit readmission. Crit. Care Med. 29, 511–518 (2001)PubMedCrossRef

25.

Schmitt, D.V., Leitner, E., Welte, T., et al.: Piperacillin/tazobactam vs imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia–a double blind prospective multicentre study. Infection 34, 127–134 (2006)PubMedCrossRef

26.

Kind, P., Hardman, G., Macran, S.: UK Population norms for EQ-5D. Discussion Paper 172. University of York, Centre for Health Economics (1999)

27.

Eddleston, J.M., White, P., Guthrie, E.: Survival, morbidity, and quality of life after discharge from intensive care. Crit. Care Med. 28, 2293–2299 (2000)PubMedCrossRef

28.

Ara, R., Brazier, J.: Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). Value in Health 11, 1131–1143 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

29.

Van Zanten, A.R.H., Engrlfriet, P.M., Van Dillen, K., et al.: Importance of nondrug costs of intravenous antibiotic therapy. Crit. Care 7, 184–190 (2003)CrossRef

30.

British National Formulary No. 56 (September 2008). Available at: www.bnf.org/bnf/bnf/current/index.htm (last accessed December 2008)

31.

National Health Service.: Reference Costs 2007/8. London: Department of Health, Feb 2008. Available at: www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_098945 (last Accessed July 2009)

32.

Curtis L.: Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2008. PSSRU, University of Kent at Canterbury (2008)

33.

Sun, X., Faunce, T.: Decision-analytical modelling in health-care economic evaluations. Eur. J. Health Econ. 9, 313–323 (2008)PubMedCrossRef

34.

American Thoracic Society.: Understanding Costs and Cost-Effectiveness in Critical Care Report from the Second American Thoracic Society Workshop on Outcomes Research. Am. J. Respir Crit. Care Med. 165, 540–550 (2002)

35.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.: Guide to the method of technology appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, June 2008. Available at:www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf (last Accessed March 2010)

36.

Claxton, K., Sculpher, M., McCabe, C., et al.: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ. 14, 339–347 (2005)PubMedCrossRef

37.

Briggs, A.H., Gray, A.M.: The distribution of health care costs and their statistical analysis for economic evaluation. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 3, 233–245 (1998)PubMed

38.

Claxton, K.: The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health technologies. J. Health Econ. 18, 341–364 (1999)PubMedCrossRef

39.

Audit Commission.: PbR Data Assurance Framework 2007/08—findings from the first year of the national clinical coding audit programme. Health National Report, August 2008. Audit Commission, London (2008)

Titel: Treating pneumonia in critical care in the United Kingdom following failure of initial antibiotic: a cost-utility analysis comparing meropenem with piperacillin/tazobactam
verfasst von: Steven J. Edwards
Sarah Wordsworth
Mike J. Clarke
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2012
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: The European Journal of Health Economics / Ausgabe 2/2012
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Elektronische ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-011-0296-0

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2012

Separating the wheat from the chaff

Exploring the disparities of regional health care expenditures in Switzerland: some empirical evidence

Defining care products to finance health care in the Netherlands

Towards a social discount rate for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Germany: an exploratory analysis

Cost-effectiveness of treatment with etanercept for psoriasis in Sweden

Malpractice liability, technology choice and negative defensive medicine