Cargando…

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stephens, Jennifer M, Gao, Xin, Patel, Dipen A, Verheggen, Bram G, Shelbaya, Ahmed, Haider, Seema
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3782516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24068869
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S46991
_version_ 1782285567771279360
author Stephens, Jennifer M
Gao, Xin
Patel, Dipen A
Verheggen, Bram G
Shelbaya, Ahmed
Haider, Seema
author_facet Stephens, Jennifer M
Gao, Xin
Patel, Dipen A
Verheggen, Bram G
Shelbaya, Ahmed
Haider, Seema
author_sort Stephens, Jennifer M
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3782516
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37825162013-09-25 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 Stephens, Jennifer M Gao, Xin Patel, Dipen A Verheggen, Bram G Shelbaya, Ahmed Haider, Seema Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Original Research 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. Dove Medical Press 2013-09-16 /pmc/articles/PMC3782516/ /pubmed/24068869 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S46991 Text en © 2013 Stephens et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd This is an Open Access article which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Stephens, Jennifer M
Gao, Xin
Patel, Dipen A
Verheggen, Bram G
Shelbaya, Ahmed
Haider, Seema
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3782516/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24068869
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S46991
work_keys_str_mv AT stephensjenniferm economicburdenofinpatientandoutpatientantibiotictreatmentformethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureuscomplicatedskinandsofttissueinfectionsacomparisonoflinezolidvancomycinanddaptomycin
AT gaoxin economicburdenofinpatientandoutpatientantibiotictreatmentformethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureuscomplicatedskinandsofttissueinfectionsacomparisonoflinezolidvancomycinanddaptomycin
AT pateldipena economicburdenofinpatientandoutpatientantibiotictreatmentformethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureuscomplicatedskinandsofttissueinfectionsacomparisonoflinezolidvancomycinanddaptomycin
AT verheggenbramg economicburdenofinpatientandoutpatientantibiotictreatmentformethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureuscomplicatedskinandsofttissueinfectionsacomparisonoflinezolidvancomycinanddaptomycin
AT shelbayaahmed economicburdenofinpatientandoutpatientantibiotictreatmentformethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureuscomplicatedskinandsofttissueinfectionsacomparisonoflinezolidvancomycinanddaptomycin
AT haiderseema economicburdenofinpatientandoutpatientantibiotictreatmentformethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureuscomplicatedskinandsofttissueinfectionsacomparisonoflinezolidvancomycinanddaptomycin