Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 85–95 | Cite as

Cost Analysis of 2 Empiric Antibacterial Regimens Containing Glycopeptides for the Treatment of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Acute Leukaemia

  • Giampaolo Bucaneve
  • Francesco Menichetti
  • Albano Del Favero
Original Research Article Treatment of Febrile Neutropenia in Leukaemia

Abstract

Objective: Patients with cancer-associated neutropenia are at high risk of developing severe infections which can be fatal if treatment is not promptly administered. For this reason, fever is treated as soon as possible with broad spectrum antibacterial therapy. The objective of this study was to conduct a cost analysis in Italy comparing 2 empiric glycoprotein-containing antibacterial regimens for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with acute leukaemia.

Design and setting: A retrospective cost analysis was conducted, using the records of 527 febrile neutropenic patients with acute leukaemia who participated in an 18-month multicentre (29 Italian haematological units) randomised trial during 1991. All patients received either of the following 2 empiric intravenous regimens, each containing 3 antibacterial agents: ceftazidime (2g, 3 times daily) and amikacin (15 mg/kg/day, in 3 separate doses) plus teicoplanin (6 mg/kg, in a single dose) or vancomycin (30 mg/kg/day, in 2 separate doses). Economic analyses were carried out from a hospital perspective. Only the direct costs per patient, i.e. mean antibacterial treatment and management cost, mean overall treatment failure cost and mean cost of adverse effects, were included.

Main outcome measures and results: No differences were found in the clinical response, defined as the improvement in the rate of fever or infection (if documented), between the 2 regimens. However, tolerability, defined as the incidence of adverse effects probably or definitely related to the assigned treatment, was reported to be better with the teicoplanin- rather than the vancomycin-containing regimen.

Conclusions: This retrospective cost analysis showed that despite the higher acquisition cost of teicoplanin relative to vancomycin, the lower incidence of adverse effects associated with teicoplanin and its ease of administration (single daily dose) resulted in equivalent overall treatment costs between teicoplaninand vancomycin-containing regimens.

Keywords

Vancomycin Adis International Limited Febrile Neutropenia Teicoplanin Febrile Neutropenic Patient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Young LS. Empirical antimicrobial therapy in the neutropenic host. N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 580–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pizzo PA. Empiric therapy and prevention of infection in the immunocompromised host. In: Mandell GL, Douglas GR, Bennett JE, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 3rd ed. New York (NY): Churchill Livingstone, 1990: 2303–11Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scimpff SC, Young VM, Greene WH, et al. Origin of infection in acute nonlymphocytic leukemia: significance of hospital acquisition of potential pathogens. Ann Intern Med 1972; 77: 707–14Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klastersky J, Zinner SH. Synergistic combination of antibiotics in gram-negative bacillary infections. Rev Infect Dis 1982; 4: 294–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bodey GP. Infection in cancer patients: a continuing association. Am J Med 1986; 81 Suppl. 1A: 11–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bodey GP. Antibiotics in patients with neutropenia. Arch Intern Med 1984; 144: 1845–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hughes WT, Armstrong D, Bodey GP et al. Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America: 1997 guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with unexplained fever. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 25: 551–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kilton LJ, Fossieck BE, Cohen MH, et al. Bacteremia due to gram-positive cocci in patients with neoplastic disease. Am J Med 1979; 66: 596–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carney DN, Fossieck BE, Parker RH, et al. Bacteremia due to Staohylococcus aureus in patients with cancer: report on 45 cases in adults and review of the literature. Rev Infect Dis 1982; 4: 1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Del Favero A, Menichetti F, Bucaneve G, et al. Septicaemia due to gram-positive cocci in cancer patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21 Suppl. C: 157–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Langley J, Gold R. Sepsis in febrile neutropenic children with cancer. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1988; 7: 34–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The EORTC International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group. Three antibiotic regimens in the treatment of infection in febrile granulocytopenic patients with cancer. J Infect Dis 1978; 137: 14–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    The EORTC International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group. Ceftazidime combined with a short or long course of amikacin for empirical therapy of gram-negative bacteremia in cancer patients with granulocytopenia. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 1692–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The EORTC International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group. Combination of amikacin and carbenicillin with or without cefazolin as empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic patients. J Clin Oncol 1983; 1: 597–603Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klastersky J, Glauser MP, Schmpff SC, the EORTC International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of three antibiotic regimens for empirical therapy of suspected bacteremia infection in febrile granulocytopenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 29: 263–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    The EORTC International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group. Vancomycin added to empirical combination antibiotic therapy for fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients. J Infect Dis 1991; 163: 951–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The EORTC International Antimicrobial Therapy Cooperative Group. Single versus multiple daily doses of amikacin combined with ceftriaxone or ceftazidime for the treatment of fever in granulocytopenic cancer patients. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119: 584–93Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    The GIMEMA Infection Program. Prevention of bacterial infection in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancy: a randomized, multicenter trial comparing norfloxacin with ciprofloxacin. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115: 7–12Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Menichetti F, Martino P, Bucaneve G, the GIMEMA Infection Program. Teicoplanin versus vancomycin as initial combined empirical antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 2041–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Menichetti F, Del Favero A. The role of gram-positive therapy in the neutropenic patient. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991; 27 Suppl. B: 51–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karp JE, Dick JD, Angelopulos C, et al. Empiric use of vancomycin during prolonged treatment-induced granulocytopenia. Am J Med 1986; 81: 237–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shenep JW, Hughes WT, Roberson PK, et al. Vancomycin, ticarcillin, and amikacin compared with ticarcillin-clavulanate and amikacin in the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic children with cancer. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1053–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Del Favero A, Menichetti F, Guerciolini R, et al. Prospective randomized clinical trial of teicoplanin for empiric combined antibiotic therapy in febrile granulocytopenic acute leukemia patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 31: 1126–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martino P, Micozzi A, Gentile G, et al. Piperacillin plus amikacin vs piperacillin plus amikacin plus teicoplanin for empirical treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients receiving quinolone prophylaxis. J Infect Dis 1992; 15: 290–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Menichetti F, Del Favero A, Bucaneve G, et al. Teicoplanin in empirical combined antibiotic therapy of bacteremias in bone marrow transplant patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21 Suppl. A: 105–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kureishi A, Jewesson PJ, Rubinger M, et al. Double-blind comparison of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in febrile neutropenic patients receiving concomitant tobramycin and piperacillin: effect on cyclosporin A-associated nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 2246–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sahai J, Healy DP, Shelto MJ, et al. Comparison of vancomycin and teicoplanin induced histamine release and ‘red man syndrome’. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 765–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Novakova I, Donnely JP, De Pauw B. Ceftazidime as monotherapy or combined with teicoplanin for initial empiric treatment of presumed bacteremia in febrile granulocytopenic patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 672–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramphal R, Bolger M, Oblon DJ, et al. Vancomycin is not an essential component of the initial empiric treatment regimen for febrile neutropenic patients receiving ceftazidime: a randomized prospective study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 1062–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rubin M, Hathorn JW, Marshall D, et al. Gram-positive infections and the use of vancomycin in 550 episodes of fever and neutropenia. Ann Intern Med 1988; 108: 30–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Faulds D, Lewis N, Milne RJ. Recombinant granulocyte colonystimulating factor: pharmacoeconomic considerations in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1: 231–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chaplin S. Cancer therapy complications costly to treat [letter]. Hosp Doc 1991; 9: 308Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leese B, Collin R, Clark DJ. The costs of treating febrile neutropenia in patients with malignant blood disorders. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 6: 233–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Garrelts JC. Pharmacoeconomic model to evaluate antibiotic costs. Pharmacotherapy 1994; 14 (4): 438–45PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ballatori E, Roila F, Berto P, et al. Cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of ondansetron versus metoclopramide regimens: a hospital perspective from Italy. PharmacoEconomics 1994; 5 (3): 227–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Spencer CM, Bryson HM. Teicoplanin: a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in the treatment of gram-positive infections. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 357–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Charbonneau P, Harding I, Garaud JJ, et al. Teicoplanin: a well tolerated and easily administered alternative to vancomycin for gram positive infections. Intensive Care Med 1994; 20 Suppl. 4: S35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giampaolo Bucaneve
    • 1
  • Francesco Menichetti
    • 2
  • Albano Del Favero
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto di Medicina Interna e Scienze OncologichePoliclinico MontelucePerugiaItaly
  2. 2.Istituto di Malattie InfettiveUniversità di PerugiaPerugiaItaly

Personalised recommendations