Cargando…

80. Pharmacoeconomic Analysis Comparing the Empiric Utilization of Cefepime Versus Piperacillin/tazobactam

BACKGROUND: In the hospital setting, cefepime (CFP) and piperacillin/tazobactam (PTZ) are among the most commonly utilized antipseudomonal agents in the empiric treatment of nosocomial and healthcare-associated infections. Institutional preference of CFP or PTZ as the preferred antipseudomonal antib...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Olmack, Kelsey, Collins, Curtis D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7776469/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.125
_version_ 1783630690757115904
author Olmack, Kelsey
Collins, Curtis D
author_facet Olmack, Kelsey
Collins, Curtis D
author_sort Olmack, Kelsey
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the hospital setting, cefepime (CFP) and piperacillin/tazobactam (PTZ) are among the most commonly utilized antipseudomonal agents in the empiric treatment of nosocomial and healthcare-associated infections. Institutional preference of CFP or PTZ as the preferred antipseudomonal antibiotic varies. Recent literature suggests each may be associated with increased rates of harmful adverse effects including Clostridiodes difficile infection (CDI) and acute kidney injury (AKI). The objective of this study is to perform a pharmacoeconomic analysis comparing CFP versus PTZ for empiric antibiotic treatment in patients where Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a concern. METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis comparing CFP and PTZ for empiric utilization in the hospital setting by creating a decision analytic model from the hospital perspective. Model variables were populated utilizing published clinical and economic data including incidence of AKI and CDI, their associated costs and mortality, and the cost of antibiotic therapy. Secondary and univariate sensitivity analyses tested the impact of model uncertainties and the robustness of our model. A willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $0 was utilized. RESULTS: Results of our base-case model predicted that the use of CFP dominated PTZ as empiric utilization was less expensive ($7690 vs. $9331) and associated with a higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) (0.9193 vs. 0.9191) compared to the use of PTZ. Several variables had the potential to impact base case results. PTZ became cost-effective at our WTP threshold if CFP nephrotoxicity rates increased to 17.3%, the PTZ nephrotoxicity decreased to 28.5%, or if the cost of nephrotoxicity was less than $17,457. No other model variables, including incidence of CDI, impacted base case results. Sensitivity Analysis on Cefepime Clostridioides difficile Infection Incidence and Piperacillin/tazobactam Nephrotoxicity [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: Results of our model showed that CFP dominated PTZ for the empiric treatment of nosocomial infections. The model was sensitive to variation in CFP and PTZ nephrotoxicity rates. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7776469
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77764692021-01-07 80. Pharmacoeconomic Analysis Comparing the Empiric Utilization of Cefepime Versus Piperacillin/tazobactam Olmack, Kelsey Collins, Curtis D Open Forum Infect Dis Poster Abstracts BACKGROUND: In the hospital setting, cefepime (CFP) and piperacillin/tazobactam (PTZ) are among the most commonly utilized antipseudomonal agents in the empiric treatment of nosocomial and healthcare-associated infections. Institutional preference of CFP or PTZ as the preferred antipseudomonal antibiotic varies. Recent literature suggests each may be associated with increased rates of harmful adverse effects including Clostridiodes difficile infection (CDI) and acute kidney injury (AKI). The objective of this study is to perform a pharmacoeconomic analysis comparing CFP versus PTZ for empiric antibiotic treatment in patients where Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a concern. METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis comparing CFP and PTZ for empiric utilization in the hospital setting by creating a decision analytic model from the hospital perspective. Model variables were populated utilizing published clinical and economic data including incidence of AKI and CDI, their associated costs and mortality, and the cost of antibiotic therapy. Secondary and univariate sensitivity analyses tested the impact of model uncertainties and the robustness of our model. A willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $0 was utilized. RESULTS: Results of our base-case model predicted that the use of CFP dominated PTZ as empiric utilization was less expensive ($7690 vs. $9331) and associated with a higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) (0.9193 vs. 0.9191) compared to the use of PTZ. Several variables had the potential to impact base case results. PTZ became cost-effective at our WTP threshold if CFP nephrotoxicity rates increased to 17.3%, the PTZ nephrotoxicity decreased to 28.5%, or if the cost of nephrotoxicity was less than $17,457. No other model variables, including incidence of CDI, impacted base case results. Sensitivity Analysis on Cefepime Clostridioides difficile Infection Incidence and Piperacillin/tazobactam Nephrotoxicity [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: Results of our model showed that CFP dominated PTZ for the empiric treatment of nosocomial infections. The model was sensitive to variation in CFP and PTZ nephrotoxicity rates. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures Oxford University Press 2020-12-31 /pmc/articles/PMC7776469/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.125 Text en © The Author 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Poster Abstracts
Olmack, Kelsey
Collins, Curtis D
80. Pharmacoeconomic Analysis Comparing the Empiric Utilization of Cefepime Versus Piperacillin/tazobactam
title 80. Pharmacoeconomic Analysis Comparing the Empiric Utilization of Cefepime Versus Piperacillin/tazobactam
title_full 80. Pharmacoeconomic Analysis Comparing the Empiric Utilization of Cefepime Versus Piperacillin/tazobactam
title_fullStr 80. Pharmacoeconomic Analysis Comparing the Empiric Utilization of Cefepime Versus Piperacillin/tazobactam
title_full_unstemmed 80. Pharmacoeconomic Analysis Comparing the Empiric Utilization of Cefepime Versus Piperacillin/tazobactam
title_short 80. Pharmacoeconomic Analysis Comparing the Empiric Utilization of Cefepime Versus Piperacillin/tazobactam
title_sort 80. pharmacoeconomic analysis comparing the empiric utilization of cefepime versus piperacillin/tazobactam
topic Poster Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7776469/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.125
work_keys_str_mv AT olmackkelsey 80pharmacoeconomicanalysiscomparingtheempiricutilizationofcefepimeversuspiperacillintazobactam
AT collinscurtisd 80pharmacoeconomicanalysiscomparingtheempiricutilizationofcefepimeversuspiperacillintazobactam