Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Apr 28;17(1):314. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2408-7.

Cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with piperacillin/tazobactam as empiric therapy based on the in-vitro surveillance of bacterial isolates in the United States for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections.

Author information

1
Shire International GmbH, Zug, Switzerland.
2
Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. vimalanand.prabhu@merck.com.
3
Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Rd., Kenilworth, NJ, 07033, USA. vimalanand.prabhu@merck.com.
4
MAPI Group, Houten, The Netherlands.
5
Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
6
Shire, Lexington, MA, USA.
7
University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

A challenge in the empiric treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) is identifying the initial appropriate antibiotic therapy (IAAT), which is associated with reduced length of stay and mortality compared with initial inappropriate antibiotic therapy (IIAT). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with piperacillin/tazobactam (one of the standard of care antibiotics), for the treatment of hospitalized patients with cUTI.

METHODS:

A decision-analytic Monte Carlo simulation model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of empiric treatment with either ceftolozane/tazobactam or piperacillin/tazobactam in hospitalized adult patients with cUTI infected with Gram-negative pathogens in the US. The model applies the baseline prevalence of resistance as reported by national in-vitro surveillance data.

RESULTS:

In a cohort of 1000 patients, treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam resulted in higher total costs compared with piperacillin/tazobactam ($36,413 /patient vs. $36,028/patient, respectively), greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (9.19/patient vs. 9.13/patient, respectively) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $6128/QALY. Ceftolozane/tazobactam remained cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY compared to piperacillin/tazobactam over a range of input parameter values during one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS:

Model results show that ceftolozane/tazobactam is likely to be cost-effective compared with piperacillin/tazobactam for the empiric treatment of hospitalized cUTI patients in the United States.

KEYWORDS:

Ceftolozane; Cost-benefit analysis; Drug resistance; Piperacillin; Tazobactam; United States; Urinary tract infections

PMID:
28454524
PMCID:
PMC5410095
DOI:
10.1186/s12879-017-2408-7
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center