Mapi Values, Boston, MA 02108, USA.
Value Health. 2009 Mar-Apr;12(2):234-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00439.x.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of community-acquired complicated intraabdominal infections accounting for development of antibiotic resistance in the Dutch setting.
A decision tree was developed to estimate cost-effectiveness of ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam at different time points after introduction of treatment. Development of resistance was incorporated using a compartment model. Resistance was a function of the eradication rate of pathogens and antibiotic prescription. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct costs and cost per QALY saved. Microbiological eradication rate, clinical success, and costs were derived from literature. The analyses included pathogens with intrinsic or acquired resistance.
The model suggested overall savings of euro355 (95% uncertainty interval euro480; euro1205) per patient when abdominal infections are treated with ertapenem instead of piperacillin/tazobactam. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found a 94% probability of the incremental cost per QALY saved being within the generally accepted threshold for cost-effectiveness (euro20,000). After 5 years, it is expected that antibiotic resistance with piperacillin/tazobactam has increased with a greater rate compared to ertapenem, and cost-savings with ertapenem are expected to increase to euro672 (euro-232; euro1617). Ertapenem will, in addition, result in greater success rates and in QALY savings (0.17; 0.07-0.30). Alternative scenarios, with lower levels of initial resistance confirm the cost savings with ertapenem.
Given the underlying assumptions and data used, this evaluation demonstrated that ertapenem is a cost saving and possibly an economically dominant therapy over piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of community-acquired intraabdominal infections in The Netherlands.
评估厄他培南与哌拉西林/他唑巴坦治疗荷兰社区获得性复杂性腹腔内感染的成本效益,同时考虑到抗生素耐药性的发展。
采用决策树评估治疗后不同时间点使用厄他培南与哌拉西林/他唑巴坦治疗的成本效益。采用房室模型来评估耐药性的发展。耐药性取决于病原体的消除率和抗生素的处方。模型结果包括质量调整生命年(QALY)、直接成本和每节省一个 QALY 的成本。微生物学清除率、临床成功率和成本均来源于文献。分析包括固有和获得性耐药的病原体。
模型表明,与哌拉西林/他唑巴坦相比,使用厄他培南治疗腹腔感染可使每位患者节省 355 欧元(95%置信区间:480 欧元;1205 欧元)。概率敏感性分析发现,每增加一个 QALY 的增量成本有 94%的可能性在普遍接受的成本效益阈值(20000 欧元)内。5 年后,预计哌拉西林/他唑巴坦的抗生素耐药性增加速度将快于厄他培南,使用厄他培南的成本节省预计将增加到 672 欧元(-232 欧元;-1617 欧元)。此外,厄他培南将导致更高的成功率和 QALY 节省(0.17;0.07-0.30)。在较低初始耐药水平的替代情景下,仍证实了厄他培南的成本节约。
在考虑到基本假设和所用数据的情况下,本评估表明,在荷兰,与哌拉西林/他唑巴坦相比,厄他培南治疗社区获得性腹腔内感染具有成本效益,且可能具有经济优势。