Economic evaluation of linezolid versus teicoplanin for the treatment of infections caused by gram-positive microorganisms in Spain

Journal of Chemotherapy

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 398-409

  Grau, S ^a   Aguado, J M ^b   Mateu De Antonio, J ^a   González García, Paloma ^c,d   Del Castillo, A ^c  

^a HOSPITAL DEL MAR   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO 12 DE OCTUBRE   (Spain)

^c PFIZER INC   (United States)

^d Parque Empresarial la Moraleja   (Spain)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Economic evaluation; Gram positive microorganisms; Linezolid; Spain; Teicoplanin

Indexed keywords

DALFOPRISTIN PLUS QUINUPRISTIN; LINEZOLID; TEICOPLANIN;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BACTEREMIA; BACTERIAL INFECTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ENDOCARDITIS; FEMALE; GRAM POSITIVE BACTERIUM; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PNEUMONIA; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SKIN INFECTION; SOFT TISSUE INFECTION; SPAIN; TREATMENT RESPONSE; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT;

EID: 34547800243     PISSN: 1120009X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1179/joc.2007.19.4.398     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Azanza JR, Barberán JA, García-Rodríguez JA et al. Recomendaciones para el tratamiento de las infecciones nosocomials producidas por microorganismos grampositivos. Rev Esp Quimio 2004; 17; 271-288.
2. Vaqué J, Grupo de trabajo EPINE. Evolución de la prevalencia de las infecciones nosocomials en los hospitales españoles (Proyecto EPINE 1990-2003). Madrid: Sociedad Española de Medicina Preventiva, Salud Pública e Higiene, 2004: 71-78.
3. Betriu C, Sánchez BA, Picazo JJ y Grupo G+R. Estudio epidemiológico de la infección por grampositivos resistentes (Estudio G+R). Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2003; 21:7-11.
4. Edmond M, Wallace S, McClish D, Pfaller M, Jones R, Wenzel R. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in United States hospitals: A three-year analysis. Clin Infect Dis 1999;29:239-44.
5. Jarvis WR. Preventing the emergence of multidrug-resistant microorganisms through antimicrobial use controls: the complexity of the problem. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996; 17: 490-495.
6. Cantón R, Mir N, Martínez-Ferrer M, Sánchez del Sanz B, Soler I, Baquero F. Estudio prospectivo de Staphylococcus aureus con sensibilidad disminuida a los glucopéptidos. Rev Esp Quimio 1999; 12: 48-53.
7. Aymerich M, García Altes A, Jowell AJ. Las resistencias bacterianas: ¿algo más que un problema clínico? La resistencia del enterococo a la vancomicina como ejemplo. Med Clin 1999; 112: 553-555.
8. Gonzàlez-Romo F, Rubio M, Betriu C, Picazo JJ y Grupo IGP. Prevalencia y tratamiento de las infecciones por grampositivos en los servicios de medicina interna de hospitales españoles: Estudio IGP. Rev Esp Quimio 2003; 16: 428-435.
9. ZYVOX (linezolid injections, linezolid tablets, linezolid for oral suspension). Kalamazoo, Mi: Pharmacia & Upjohn Company; 2000.
10. Lyseng-Williamson KA, Goa KL. Linezolid in infants and children with severe Gram -positive infections. Paediatr drugs 2003; 5: 419-429.
11. Perry CM, Jarvis B. Linezolid. A review of its use in the management of serious Gram-positive infections. Drugs 2001; 61:525-551.
12. Stevens DL, Dotter B, Madaras-Kelly K. A review of linezolid: the first oxazolidinone antibiotic. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2004; 2: 51-59.
13. Wunderink RG, Cammarata SK, Oliphant TH, Kollef MH. Continuation of a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of linezolid versus vancomycin in the treatment of patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Clin Ther 2003; 25: 980-92.
14. Kollef MH, Rello J, Cammarata SK, Croos-Dabrera RV, Wunderink RG. Clinical healing and survival in Gram-positive ventilator-associated pneumonia: retrospective analysis of two double-blind studies comparing linezolid with vancomycin. Intensive care med 2004; 30: 388-94.
15. Sharpe JN, Shively EH, Polk HC. Clinical and economic outcomes of oral linezolid versus intravenous vancomycin in the treatment of MRSA complicated, lower-extremity skin and soft-tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Surg 2005; 189:425-428.
16. Grau S, Álvarez E, de la Fuente S, Neipp R, Rubio-Terres C. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia with linezolid or vancomycin in Spain. J Chemother 2005; 17 (2): 203-11.
17. Grünewald T, De Cock E, Sorensen S et al. Cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin in suspected methicillin-resistant Staphyloccus aureus in nosocomial pneumonia in Germany. Value Health 2004; 7: 758.
18. Sorensen SV, Hollenbeak CS, Baker TM, Resch A, Duttagupta S. Linezolid for the treatment of skin and soft-tissue MRSA infections - a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin: evidence from a multinational clinical trial. Value Health 2004; 7: 758-9.
19. Li Z, Willke RJ, Pinto LA, et al. Comparison of length of hospital stay for patients with known or suspected methicillin-resistant staphylococcus species infections treated with linezolid or vancomycin. A randomized, multicenter trial. Pharmacotherapy 2001; 21: 263-274.
20. Wilcox M, Tang T, Hafkin B. Linezolid versus teicoplanin for the treatment of hospitalized patients with Gram positive infections. In Programs and Abstracts of the Forty-first Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Chicago, IL, 2001. Abstract 1481, p. 471. American Society for Microbiology, Washington. DC, USA.
21. Grau S, Mateu-de Antonio J, Soto J, Marin-Casino M. Salas E. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of linezolid versus teicoplanin in bacteremia by Gram-positive microorganisms. Pharm World Sci 2005; 27: 459-464.
22. Wilcox M, Nathwani D, Dryden M. Linezolid compared with teicoplanin for the treatment of suspected or proven Gram-positive infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 53: 335-44.
23. Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB et al. Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest 1992; 101: 1644-55.
24. Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989
25. Rovira J, Antoñanzas F. Economic analysis of health technologies and programmes. A Spanish proposal for methodological standardisation. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 8: 245-252.
26. Real Decreto 2402/2004, de 30 de septiembre, por el que se desarrolla el artículo 104 de la Ley 25/1990, de 20 de diciembre, del Medicamento, para las revisiones coyunturales de precios de especialidades farmacéuticas y se adaptan medidas adicionales para la contención del gasto farmacéutico. BOE núm. 315 de 31/12/2004 Sec 1 Pag: 42819-42905.
27. Nathwani D, Li JZ, Balan DA et al. An economic evaluation of a European cohort from a multinational trial of linezolid versus teicoplanin in serious Gram-positive infections: the importance of treatment setting in evaluating treatment effects. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2004: 23: 315-324.
28. López H, Li JZ, Balan DA et al. Hospital resource use and cost of treatment with linezolid versus teicoplanin for the treatment of serious gram-positive bacterial infections among hospitalized patients from South America and Mexico: results form a multicenter trial. Clin Ther 2003; 25: 1846-71.
29. Grau S, Monterde J, Carmona A et al. Monitoring of antimicrobial therapy by an integrated computer program. Pharm World Sci 1999; 21: 152-7.
30. Cobo J, Oliva J, Sanz J, Aguado JM, del Pozo J, Moreno S. Influence of microbiological reports on physician's choice of antimicrobial treatment for susceptible pathogens. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2003; 22: 569-72.