Lin Po-Chang, Wang Bruce C M, Kim Richard, Magyar Andrew, Lai Chung-Chih, Yang Ya-Wen, Huang Yhu-Chering
Department of Internal Medicine, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Elysia Group, Taipei, Taiwan.
J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2016 Feb;49(1):46-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2015.08.002. Epub 2015 Sep 9.
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia (NP) is associated with higher resource utilization, increased hospital stays, and mortality. We present a health economics model to understand the impact of using linezolid as the first-line treatment of MRSA NP in Taiwan.
We developed a cost-effectiveness model to estimate the costs and clinical outcomes of using linezolid 600 mg b.i.d. versus vancomycin 15 mg/kg b.i.d. as the first-line treatment of MRSA NP in Taiwan. The model is a decision-analytic analysis in which a MRSA-confirmed patient is simulated to utilize one of the treatments, using data from a clinical trial. Within each treatment arm, the patient can or cannot achieve clinical cure. Regardless of whether the clinical cure was achieved or not, the patient may or may not have experienced an adverse event. The per-protocol results for clinical cure were 57.6% and 46.6% for linezolid and vancomycin, respectively.
The total cost of linezolid was $376 more per patient than that of vancomycin. Drug costs were higher for linezolid than for vancomycin ($1108 vs. $233), and hospitalization costs were lower ($4998 vs. $5496). With higher cost and higher cure rates for linezolid, the incremental cost per cure was $3421.
This study projects linezolid to have higher drug costs, lower hospital costs, and higher overall costs compared with vancomycin. This is balanced against the higher clinical cure rate for linezolid. Depending on the willingness to pay for clinical cure, linezolid could be cost effective as the first-line treatment of NP in Taiwan.
背景/目的:耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)医院获得性肺炎(NP)与更高的资源利用、更长的住院时间和死亡率相关。我们提出一个卫生经济学模型,以了解在台湾使用利奈唑胺作为MRSA NP一线治疗的影响。
我们开发了一个成本效益模型,以估计在台湾使用600毫克利奈唑胺每日两次与15毫克/千克万古霉素每日两次作为MRSA NP一线治疗的成本和临床结果。该模型是一种决策分析,其中模拟一名确诊为MRSA的患者使用其中一种治疗方法,并使用来自一项临床试验的数据。在每个治疗组中,患者可能治愈或未治愈。无论是否实现临床治愈,患者可能发生或未发生不良事件。利奈唑胺和万古霉素的按方案临床治愈率分别为57.6%和46.6%。
利奈唑胺的每位患者总成本比万古霉素高376美元。利奈唑胺的药物成本高于万古霉素(1108美元对233美元),而住院成本较低(4998美元对5496美元)。由于利奈唑胺成本更高且治愈率更高,每治愈一例的增量成本为3421美元。
本研究预测,与万古霉素相比,利奈唑胺的药物成本更高,住院成本更低,总体成本更高。这与利奈唑胺更高的临床治愈率相平衡。根据为临床治愈愿意支付的费用,利奈唑胺作为台湾NP的一线治疗可能具有成本效益。