Cargando…

Cost-minimization analysis of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in moderate to severe infections at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the costs of management of moderate to severe infections in patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin (IC) and meropenem (MEM). Pharmacoeconomic studies in Saudi Arabia are scarce. The current hospital formulary contains 2 carbapenems: IC and MEM. These anti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Joosub, Imraan, Gray, Andy, Crisostomo, Analyn, Salam, Abdul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4669425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26702257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2015.02.016
_version_ 1782404099413639168
author Joosub, Imraan
Gray, Andy
Crisostomo, Analyn
Salam, Abdul
author_facet Joosub, Imraan
Gray, Andy
Crisostomo, Analyn
Salam, Abdul
author_sort Joosub, Imraan
collection PubMed
description Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the costs of management of moderate to severe infections in patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin (IC) and meropenem (MEM). Pharmacoeconomic studies in Saudi Arabia are scarce. The current hospital formulary contains 2 carbapenems: IC and MEM. These antibiotics share a similar spectrum of activity. There are conflicting reviews with regard to the relative cost-effectiveness of these two agents. Methods: A retrospective, single-centre cohort study of 88 patients of IC versus MEM in moderate to severe infections was performed, applying cost-minimization analysis (CMA) methods. In accordance with CMA methods, the assumption of equivalent efficacy was first demonstrated by literature retrieved and appraised. Adult patients (⩾18 years old) diagnosed with moderate to severe infections, including skin and skin structure infections (SSIs), sepsis, intra-abdominal infections (IAIs), respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections (UTIs) and hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), who were prescribed IC 500 mg every six hours intravenously (2 g per day) or MEM 1 g every eight hours (3 g per day), were included in the study. Only direct costs related to the management of the infections were included, in accordance with a payer perspective. Results: Overall there was no difference in the mean total daily costs between IC (SAR 4784.46, 95% CI 4140.68, 5428.24) and MEM (4390.14, 95% CI 3785.82, 4994.45; p = 0.37). A significantly lower medicine acquisition cost per vial of IC was observed when compared to MEM, however there was a significantly higher cost attached to administration sets used in the IC group than the MEM group. Consultation, nursing and physician costs were not significantly different between the groups. No differences were observed in costs associated with adverse drug events (ADEs). Conclusion: This study has shown that while acquisition costs of IC at a dose of 500 mg q6 h may be lower than for MEM 1 g q8 h, mean total costs per day were not significantly different between IC and MEM, indicating that medicine costs are only a small element of the overall costs of managing moderate to severe infections.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4669425
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46694252015-12-23 Cost-minimization analysis of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in moderate to severe infections at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia Joosub, Imraan Gray, Andy Crisostomo, Analyn Salam, Abdul Saudi Pharm J Original Article Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the costs of management of moderate to severe infections in patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin (IC) and meropenem (MEM). Pharmacoeconomic studies in Saudi Arabia are scarce. The current hospital formulary contains 2 carbapenems: IC and MEM. These antibiotics share a similar spectrum of activity. There are conflicting reviews with regard to the relative cost-effectiveness of these two agents. Methods: A retrospective, single-centre cohort study of 88 patients of IC versus MEM in moderate to severe infections was performed, applying cost-minimization analysis (CMA) methods. In accordance with CMA methods, the assumption of equivalent efficacy was first demonstrated by literature retrieved and appraised. Adult patients (⩾18 years old) diagnosed with moderate to severe infections, including skin and skin structure infections (SSIs), sepsis, intra-abdominal infections (IAIs), respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections (UTIs) and hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), who were prescribed IC 500 mg every six hours intravenously (2 g per day) or MEM 1 g every eight hours (3 g per day), were included in the study. Only direct costs related to the management of the infections were included, in accordance with a payer perspective. Results: Overall there was no difference in the mean total daily costs between IC (SAR 4784.46, 95% CI 4140.68, 5428.24) and MEM (4390.14, 95% CI 3785.82, 4994.45; p = 0.37). A significantly lower medicine acquisition cost per vial of IC was observed when compared to MEM, however there was a significantly higher cost attached to administration sets used in the IC group than the MEM group. Consultation, nursing and physician costs were not significantly different between the groups. No differences were observed in costs associated with adverse drug events (ADEs). Conclusion: This study has shown that while acquisition costs of IC at a dose of 500 mg q6 h may be lower than for MEM 1 g q8 h, mean total costs per day were not significantly different between IC and MEM, indicating that medicine costs are only a small element of the overall costs of managing moderate to severe infections. Elsevier 2015-11 2015-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC4669425/ /pubmed/26702257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2015.02.016 Text en © 2015 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Joosub, Imraan
Gray, Andy
Crisostomo, Analyn
Salam, Abdul
Cost-minimization analysis of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in moderate to severe infections at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia
title Cost-minimization analysis of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in moderate to severe infections at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia
title_full Cost-minimization analysis of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in moderate to severe infections at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia
title_fullStr Cost-minimization analysis of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in moderate to severe infections at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia
title_full_unstemmed Cost-minimization analysis of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in moderate to severe infections at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia
title_short Cost-minimization analysis of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in moderate to severe infections at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia
title_sort cost-minimization analysis of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in moderate to severe infections at a tertiary care hospital in saudi arabia
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4669425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26702257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2015.02.016
work_keys_str_mv AT joosubimraan costminimizationanalysisofimipenemcilastatinversusmeropeneminmoderatetosevereinfectionsatatertiarycarehospitalinsaudiarabia
AT grayandy costminimizationanalysisofimipenemcilastatinversusmeropeneminmoderatetosevereinfectionsatatertiarycarehospitalinsaudiarabia
AT crisostomoanalyn costminimizationanalysisofimipenemcilastatinversusmeropeneminmoderatetosevereinfectionsatatertiarycarehospitalinsaudiarabia
AT salamabdul costminimizationanalysisofimipenemcilastatinversusmeropeneminmoderatetosevereinfectionsatatertiarycarehospitalinsaudiarabia