Treating pneumonia in critical care in the United Kingdom following failure of initial antibiotic: a cost-utility analysis comparing meropenem with piperacillin/tazobactam
- 437 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsMeropenem Piperacillin Infection Critical care Cost-effectiveness analysis Economic evaluation
- 1.Welch, C.: Personal Communication (February 2009). Case Mix Programme Database (ICNARC, Tavistock House, Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9HR)Google Scholar
- 3.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)Google Scholar
- 4.American Thoracic Society.: Guidelines for the management of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care. Med. 163 1730–1750 (2001)Google Scholar
- 5.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)Google Scholar
- 6.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)
- 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)
- 26.Kind, P., Hardman, G., Macran, S.: UK Population norms for EQ-5D. Discussion Paper 172. University of York, Centre for Health Economics (1999)Google Scholar
- 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)Google Scholar
- 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)Google Scholar
- 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)
- 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)Google Scholar