Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 369–381 | Cite as

Cost Effectiveness of Cephalosporin Monotherapy and Aminoglycoside/Ureidopenicillin Combination Therapy

For the Treatment of Febrile Episodes in Neutropenic Patients
  • Joseph A. Paladino
  • Debra A. Fong
  • Alan Forrest
  • Reuben Ramphal
Original Research Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Ceftazidime Cefepime Febrile Episode Clinical Success Rate Mezlocillin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Lynn Jagodzinski for her technical assistance. This work was funded in part by an unrestricted grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

References

  1. 1.
    Pizzo PA. Management of fever in patients with cancer and treatment-induced neutropenia. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1323–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giamarellou H. Empiric therapy for infections in the febrile, neutropenic, compromised host. Med Clin North Am 1995; 79: 559–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pizzo PA, Ladisch S, Simon RM, et al. Increasing incidence of Gram-positive sepsis in cancer patients. Med Pediatr Oncol 1978; 5: 241–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bochud PY, Eggiman PH, Calandra TH, et al. Bacteremia due to viridans streptococcus in neutropenic patients with cancer: clinical spectrum and risk factors. Clin Infect Dis 1994; 18: 25–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chow JW, Fine MJ, Shlaes DM, et al. Enterobacter bacteremia: clinical features and emergence of antibiotic resistance during therapy. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115: 585–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ramphal R, Gucalp R, Rotstein C, et al. Clinical experience with single agent and combination regimens in the management of infection in the febrile neutropenic patient. Am J Med 1996; 100 Suppl. 6A: 83S-9SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rolston KV, Berkey P, Bodey GP, et al. A comparison of imipenem to ceftazidime with or without amikacin as empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152: 283–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wade JC, Johnson DE, Bustamante CI. Monotherapy for empiric treatment of fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients. Am J Med 1986; 80 Suppl. 5C: 85–95Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DePauw B, Deresinski S, Feld R, et al. Ceftazidime compared with piperacillin and tobramycin for the empiric treatment of fever in neutropenic patients with cancer: a multicenter randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120: 834–44Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Infectious Diseases Society of America. 1997 guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with unexplained fever. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 25: 551–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leese B. The costs of treating febrile neutropenia in six UK hospitals. Eur J Cancer 1993; 29A Suppl. 7: S15–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glaspy JA, Jakway J. Cost considerations in therapy with myeloid growth factors. Am J Hosp Pharm 1993; 50 Suppl. 3: 519–26Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holdsworth MT, Duncan MH. Health care outcomes case study: febrile neutropenia. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 1995; 52 Suppl. 4: S15–8Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paladino JA. Cost-effectiveness comparison of cefepime and ceftazidime using decision analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 5: 505–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clarke MJ, Paladino JA. Pharmacoeconomic comparison of cefepime versus ceftazidime in septic patients. J Infect Dis Pharmacother 1996; 2: 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maxipimer (cefepime hydrochloride) for injection [package insert]. Princeton (NJ): Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, revised 1999Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute. New Drug Application 50–679. Maxipimer (cefepime HCl) for injection; empiric therapy in febrile neutropenic patients. Wallingford (CT): Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute, 1996: Suppl. 4Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Breen J, Ramphal R, Cometta A, et al. Cefepime versus ceftazidime in the empiric therapy of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients. In: Klastersky JA, editor. Febrile neutropenia. Berlin: Springer, 1997: 63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yamamura D, Gucalp R, Carlisle P, et al. Open, randomized study of cefepime versus piperacillin-gentamicin for treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1997; 41: 1704–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eggiman P, Glauser MP, Aoun M, et al. Cefepime monotherapy for the empirical treatment of fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 32 Suppl.B: 151–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bohme A, Shah PM, Stille W, et al. Piperacillin-tazobactam versus cefepime as initial empiric antimicrobial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients: a prospective randomized pilot study. Eur J Med Res 1998; 3: 324–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    The Infectious Diseases Society of America. General guidelines for the evaluation of new anti-infective drugs for the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients. Clin Infect Dis 1992; 15 Suppl. 1: S206–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    The Immunocompromised Host Society. The design, analysis and reporting of clinical trials on the empirical antibiotic management of the neutropenic patient: report of a consensus panel. J Infect Dis 1990; 161: 397–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paladino JA, Fell PE. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of cefmenoxime dual individualization in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. Ann Pharmacother 1994; 28: 384–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Katz DA, Welch HG. Discounting in cost-effectiveness analysis of healthcare programmes. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 3: 276–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clemens K, Townsend R, Luscombe F, et al. Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8: 169–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Foran RM, Brett JL, Wulf PH. Evaluating the cost impact of intravenous antibiotic dosing frequencies. DICP Ann Pharmacother 1991; 25: 546–52Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith CF, Amen RJ. Comparison of seven methods of preparing and administering small-volume injections. Am J Hosp Pharm 1988; 45: 1896–901PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tanner DJ. Cost containment of reconstituted parenteral antibiotics: personnel and supply costs associated with preparation, dispensing, and administration. Rev Infect Dis 1984; 6 Suppl. 4: S924–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cardinale V, editor. Drug topics red book 1996. Oradelle (NJ): Medical Economics Data, 1996Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Garrelts JC, Horst WD, Silkey B, et al. A pharmacoeconomic model to evaluate antibiotic costs. Pharmacotherapy 1994; 14: 438–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McKinnon PS, Paladino JA, Grayson ML, et al. Cost-effectiveness comparison of ampicillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in diabetic patients. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24: 57–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Anaissie EJ, Vadhan-Raj S. Is it time to redefine the management of febrile neutropenia in cancer patients? [editorial].Am J Med 1995; 98: 221–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eisenberg JM. Clinical economics: a guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 1989; 262: 2879–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jolicoeur LM, Jones-Grizzle AJ, Boyer JG. Guidelines for performing a pharmacoeconomic analysis. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992; 49: 1741–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    D’Argenio DZ, Schumitzky A. ADAPT II user’s guide, release 4. Los Angeles (CA):Biomedical Simulations Resource, University of Southern California, 1997Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Paladino JA, Kapfer JA, Dibona JR. Bedside estimation of creatinine clearance: which method is most accurate while least complex? Hosp Formul 1986; 21: 709–15Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Canaday BR, Poe TE, Sawyer WT, et al. Fractional adjustment of predicted creatinine clearance in females. Am J Hosp Pharm 1984; 41: 1842–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dranitsaris G. Clinical and economic considerations of empirical antibacterial therapy of febrile neutropenia in cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16: 343–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brown A. Neutropenia, fever and infections. Am J Med 1984; 76: 421–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Obadina M, Cho C, Oketunji A, et al. Neutropenia and fever in patients receiving chemotherapy in a community teaching hospital: results of a retrospective chart review. Maryland Med J 1994; 43: 977–80Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pizzo PA. Evaluation of fever in the patient with cancer. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1989; 25 Suppl. 2: S9–16Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pizzo PA, Hathorn JW, Hiemenz J, et al. A randomized trial comparing ceftazidime alone with combination antibiotic therapy in cancer patients with fever and neutropenia. N Engl J Med 1986: 315: 552–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    American Hospital Association. American Hospital Association hospital statistics. Chicago (IL): American Hospital Association, 1996–1997Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jensen KM, Paladino JA. Cost effectiveness of abbreviating the duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy with oral fluoroquinolones. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11: 64–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph A. Paladino
    • 1
  • Debra A. Fong
    • 1
  • Alan Forrest
    • 1
  • Reuben Ramphal
    • 2
  1. 1.The Clinical Pharmacokinetics LaboratoryMillard Fillmore Suburban Hospitals, Kaleida Health, and the State University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.The University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations