Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Spain University of Barcelona, CIBERES, IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain.
University of Udine and Santa Maria Misericordia University Hospital, Udine, Italy.
J Med Econ. 2020 Feb;23(2):148-155. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2019.1688819. Epub 2019 Nov 26.
Adults admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) impose significant burden upon limited hospital resources. To achieve early response and possibly early discharge, thus reducing hospital expenditure, the choice of initial antibiotic therapy is pivotal. A cost-consequences model was developed to evaluate ceftaroline fosamil (CFT) as an alternative to other antibiotic therapies (ceftriaxone, co-amoxiclav, moxifloxacin, levofloxacin) for the empiric treatment of hospitalized adults with moderate/severe CAP (PORT score III-IV) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Compared with ceftriaxone, the model predicted an increase in the number of CFT-treated patients discharged early (PDE) (30.6% vs. 26.1%) while decreasing initial antibiotic failures (3.8% vs. 7.6%). For patients with pneumococcal pneumonia, CFT was cost-saving vs. ceftriaxone (by 1.2%) and significantly increased PDE (32.1% vs. 24.6%). CFT resulted in cost-saving vs. levofloxacin, due lower initial antibiotic therapy costs and increased PDE (30.6% vs. 14.9%). Moxifloxacin and co-amoxiclav early response rate of 53.63% and 54.24% resulted in cost neutrality vs. CFT, with direct comparison hampered by the significantly different early response criteria utilized in the literature. Despite a higher unit cost, CFT is a reasonable alternative to other agents for adults hospitalized with moderate/severe CAP, given the projected higher PDE achieved with similar or lower total costs.
成人社区获得性肺炎(CAP)住院患者给有限的医院资源带来了巨大负担。为了实现早期治疗反应并可能提前出院,从而降低医院支出,初始抗生素治疗的选择至关重要。本研究从西班牙国家卫生系统(NHS)的角度,建立了一个成本后果模型,用于评估头孢洛林酯(CFT)作为其他抗生素治疗(头孢曲松、复方阿莫西林克拉维酸、莫西沙星、左氧氟沙星)的替代方案,用于经验性治疗中重度 CAP(PORT 评分 III-IV)住院成人患者。与头孢曲松相比,模型预测 CFT 治疗的早期出院患者数量增加(30.6% vs. 26.1%),同时初始抗生素治疗失败率降低(3.8% vs. 7.6%)。对于肺炎链球菌肺炎患者,CFT 与头孢曲松相比具有成本效益(节省 1.2%),并显著增加了 PDE(32.1% vs. 24.6%)。CFT 与左氧氟沙星相比具有成本效益,这是由于初始抗生素治疗费用较低和 PDE 增加(30.6% vs. 14.9%)。莫西沙星和复方阿莫西林克拉维酸的早期反应率分别为 53.63%和 54.24%,与 CFT 相比具有成本中性,由于文献中使用的早期反应标准显著不同,直接比较受到阻碍。尽管单位成本较高,但鉴于 CFT 可实现更高的 PDE,同时总费用相似或更低,对于中重度 CAP 住院的成人患者,CFT 是其他药物的合理替代方案。