Phillips Suzanne, MacDougall Conan, Holdford David A
Department of Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Ann Pharmacother. 2007 Jan;41(1):13-20. doi: 10.1345/aph.1H452. Epub 2007 Jan 2.
The rise in community-onset methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections potentially complicates the empiric management of cellulitis. The threshold at which drugs active against MRSA, such as clindamycin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX), should be incorporated into empiric therapy is unknown.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using cephalexin, TMP/SMX, or clindamycin for outpatient empiric therapy of cellulitis, given various likelihoods of infection due to MRSA.
A decision analysis of the empiric treatment of cellulitis was performed from the perspective of a third-party payer. The model included initial therapy with cephalexin, clindamycin, or TMP/SMX, followed by treatment with linezolid in cases of clinical failure. Probability and cost estimates were obtained from clinical trials, epidemiologic data, and publicly available cost data and were subjected to sensitivity analysis.
Under the base-case scenario (37% probability of infection by S. aureus and a 27% MRSA prevalence), cephalexin was the most cost-effective option. Clindamycin became a more cost-effective therapy at MRSA probabilities from 41-80% when the probability of staphylococcal infection was greater than 40%. TMP/SMX was cost-effective only at very high likelihoods of MRSA infection. Variables with the most influence in the model were probability of S. aureus being methicillin-resistant, cost of linezolid, probability of a cure with cephalexin for a non-MRSA infection, and probability of infection due to S. aureus.
Cephalexin remains a cost-effective therapy for outpatient management of cellulitis at current estimated MRSA levels. Cephalexin was the most cost-effective choice over most of the modeled range of probabilities, with clindamycin becoming more cost-effective at high likelihoods of MRSA infection. TMP/SMX is unlikely to be cost-effective for treatment of simple cellulitis. Further studies of the microbiology of cellulitis, the epidemiology of MRSA, and the clinical effectiveness of clindamycin and TMP/SMX in skin and soft tissue infections are needed.
社区获得性耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)感染的增加可能会使蜂窝织炎的经验性治疗变得复杂。对于像克林霉素和甲氧苄啶/磺胺甲恶唑(TMP/SMX)等对MRSA有效的药物,应在何种阈值下纳入经验性治疗尚不清楚。
鉴于因MRSA感染的可能性不同,评估使用头孢氨苄、TMP/SMX或克林霉素进行蜂窝织炎门诊经验性治疗的成本效益。
从第三方支付方的角度对蜂窝织炎的经验性治疗进行决策分析。该模型包括使用头孢氨苄、克林霉素或TMP/SMX进行初始治疗,临床治疗失败时则使用利奈唑胺治疗。概率和成本估计来自临床试验、流行病学数据以及公开可得的成本数据,并进行敏感性分析。
在基础病例情景下(金黄色葡萄球菌感染概率为37%,MRSA流行率为27%),头孢氨苄是最具成本效益的选择。当葡萄球菌感染概率大于40%且MRSA概率在41%-80%时,克林霉素成为更具成本效益的治疗方法。仅在MRSA感染可能性非常高时,TMP/SMX才具有成本效益。模型中影响最大的变量是金黄色葡萄球菌耐甲氧西林的概率、利奈唑胺的成本、头孢氨苄治疗非MRSA感染的治愈概率以及金黄色葡萄球菌感染的概率。
按照目前估计的MRSA水平,头孢氨苄仍是蜂窝织炎门诊治疗的一种具有成本效益的疗法。在大多数建模概率范围内,头孢氨苄是最具成本效益的选择,在MRSA感染可能性高时,克林霉素更具成本效益。TMP/SMX治疗单纯性蜂窝织炎不太可能具有成本效益。需要对蜂窝织炎的微生物学、MRSA的流行病学以及克林霉素和TMP/SMX在皮肤和软组织感染中的临床疗效进行进一步研究。