Cost evaluation of continuation of therapy with dalbavancin compared to standard-of-care antibiotics alone in hospitalized persons who inject drugs with severe gram-positive infections

PURPOSE

Persons who inject drugs (PWID) are at risk for severe gram-positive infections and may require prolonged hospitalization and intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. Dalbavancin (DBV) is a long-acting lipoglycopeptide that may reduce costs and provide effective treatment in this population.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of PWID with severe gram-positive infections. Patients admitted from January 1, 2017, to November 1, 2019 (standard-of-care [SOC] group) and from November 15, 2019, to March 31, 2022 (DBV group) were included. The primary outcome was the total cost to the healthcare system. Secondary outcomes included hospital days saved and treatment failure.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients were included (37 in the DBV group and 50 in the SOC group). Patients were a median of 34 years old and were predominantly Caucasian (82%). Staphylococcus aureus (82%) was the most common organism, and bacteremia (71%) was the most common type of infection. Compared to the SOC group, the DBV group would have had a median of 14 additional days of hospitalization if they had stayed to complete their therapy (P = 0.014). The median total cost to the healthcare system was significantly lower in the DBV group than in the SOC group ($31,698.00 vs $45,093.50; P = 0.035). The rate of treatment failure was similar between the groups (32.4% in the DBV group vs 36% in the SOC group; P = 0.729).

CONCLUSION

DBV is a cost-saving alternative to SOC IV antibiotics for severe gram-positive infections in PWID, with similar treatment outcomes. Larger prospective studies, including other patient populations, may demonstrate additional benefit.

New Gram Positive Agents to Treat Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

The FDA guidance published in 2013 provided requirements for conducting ABSSSI trials. In 2014, dalbavancin, oritavancin, and tedizolid were introduced into the market after phase III noninferiority clinical trials against vancomycin (for the lipoglycopeptides) and linezolid (for tedizolid), demonstrating clinical efficacy for the treatment of ABSSSI. Great interest exists for these agents because of the postulated financial impact. Due to favorable pharmacokinetics which allow for less frequent medication administration and shorter treatment durations, these agents may prove to reduce hospital admissions and length of stay.

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

The aim of this study was to perform a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of linezolid vs teicoplanin (i.v., switching to oral/i.m. respectively) in Spain. A decision tree model was used with the results of a randomized, comparative, controlled clinical trial with linezolid vs teicoplanin in the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive microorganisms, with a timeline of 31 days. The efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients with clinical healing or improvement in their infection. Direct medical costs were included using Spanish 2005 prices. Average cost per patient, average cost-effectiveness ratio and several sensitivity analyses were carried out. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis linezolid obtained a higher percentage of therapeutic success than teicoplanin (95.5% vs 87.6% respectively, p = 0.005), both with similar tolerability. The average cost per treated patient was euro 8,064.76 for linezolid vs euro 8,727.36 for teicoplanin, with an incremental cost of euro 622.59 (-7,6%). Linezolid yielded a lower average cost-effectiveness ratio, euro 8,444.78 (8,195.90 - 8,709.25) than teicoplanin, euro 9,962.74 (9,465.68 - 10,502.23), with a slight reduction in average cost per successfully treated patient of 15.2% ( euro 1,517.96). The results were robust to the sensitivity analysis. In conclusion, linezolid is a more cost-effective option than teicoplanin in the treatment of infections caused by Gram-positive microorganisms, since it offers superior clinical benefits with a lower use of associated resources.

Health economics assessment study of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in Gram-positive infections

The objective of this study, conducted at Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain, was to compare the cost of treatment of Gram-positive infections with teicoplanin and vancomycin under normal conditions. Using a prospective observational study design for drug utilization and economic assessment, we evaluated the comparability of the sample, adverse events, features of treatment with teicoplanin/vancomycin and factors influencing the consumption of resources until the end of glycopeptide treatment or discharge (whichever occurred later) using Health System perspective. Costs were assigned using the hospital's evaluation at the time of the study. Analyses made: multivariate, sensitivity (by modifying staff or acquisition costs) and simulation of reduction of stay by early discharge in the teicoplanin group. Study participants included 201 patients who had been using teicoplanin (n=100) or vancomycin (n=101) for at least four days. Data collected daily outside morning work timetable. Costs of acquisition, administration and monitoring by course of treatment (mean+/-SD, in euros) were lower in the vancomycin group (teicoplanin euro647.62+/-euro572.75 vs. vancomycin euro378.11+/-euro225.90); when total costs (including hospital stay) were considered, no differences were found (teicoplanin euro4,432.04+/-euro3,383.46 vs. vancomycin euro4,364.44+/-euro2,734.24). Conditions of use and results were similar for both antibiotics. The economic results of acquisition, administration and monitoring were advantageous for vancomycin; when global costs of care were taken into account, these differences were not evident. Tolerability was significantly advantageous in the teicoplanin group (with regard to phlebitis and elevation of creatininemia), without differences in clinical or economic outcomes. The formulation of teicoplanin did not take advantage of its potential benefits of administration.

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Linezolid Versus Teicoplanin in Bacteremia by Gram-Positive Microorganisms*

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the efficiency of linezolid versus teicoplanin in the treatment of bacteremia produced by Gram-positive microorganisms through a pharmacoeconomic analysis based on clinical results obtained from a previous clinical trial.

METHODS

We applied an analysis of cost-effectiveness elaborated through a pharmacoeconomic model. We defined each unit of effectiveness as 'each successfully cured of infections with bacteremia.' We used the program Pharma-Decision (version Hospital 1.1) that allows to build interactive pharmacoeconomic models. Effectiveness data of both antibiotics were obtained from a published clinical trial, while resources consumed were obtained from the same source and from a consensus provided by a local expert panel. Only direct costs were included in the analysis without taking into consideration indirect costs. The perspective chosen was hospital assistance and the time horizon was set to 28 days. All costs are expressed in Euros.

RESULTS

Linezolid demonstrated a better clinical outcome with less associated costs compared to teicoplanin (88.5 versus 56.7% of cured patients and 5,557.04 versus 6,327.43 <euro> per treated patient, respectively), thus resulting in a lower cost-effectiveness ratio for linezolid versus teicoplanin (6,279.1 versus 11,159.5 <euro> per cured patient with a 95% CI of 5,960.2-6,510.4 and 10,865.2-12,647.3, respectively) which results in a the dominant position for linezolid. The sensitivity analysis showed that linezolid was always the most efficient option even when modifying the value of variables with higher uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Linezolid is a more efficient option than teicoplanin because it presents higher rate of effectiveness with lower consumption of resources, thus being a dominant alternative in the treatment of Gram-positive infection with bacteremia.

Addition of Teicoplanin or Vancomycin for the Treatment of Documented Bacteremia due to Gram-Positive Cocci in Neutropenic Patients with Hematological Malignancies: Microbiological, Clinical and Economic Evaluation

A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted on 124 febrile patients with hematological malignancies to compare teicoplanin with vancomycin as an addition to the initial empiric amikacin-ceftazidime regimen after documented bacteremia due to gram-positive cocci. At enrollment, patients in both groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, underlying hematologic disorders and duration of neutropenia. Rates of therapeutic success were 55/63 (87.3%) in the teicoplanin group and 56/61 (91.8%) in the vancomycin group (p = 0.560). The mean duration of treatment was similar, being 12.2 and 11.4 days, respectively (p = 0.216). Patients treated with teicoplanin remained febrile for slightly longer than those treated with vancomycin (4.9 vs. 4.0 days) (p = 0.013). Thirteen patients experienced an adverse drug reaction, but without any significant difference in the two arms. Isolated staphylococci showed a progressive and significant decrease in susceptibility to both glycopeptides during the 8 study years. The economic analysis performed showed that the addition of vancomycin is cost-saving.

An economic evaluation of a European cohort from a multinational trial of linezolid versus teicoplanin in serious Gram-positive bacterial infections: the importance of treatment setting in evaluating treatment effects

In a recent multinational trial, hospital resource use and total cost of treatment were compared between linezolid and teicoplanin for severe Gram-positive bacterial infections among 227 European hospitalised patients. The results show that the linezolid group had a 3.2-day (6.3 for linezolid versus 9.5 for teicoplanin groups) shorter mean intravenous antibiotic treatment duration. Certain baseline variables, particularly the inpatient location at enrolment and the presence of outpatient/home parenteral antibiotic therapy (OHPAT), had substantial effects on length of stay (LOS) and cost of treatment. After adjusting for the between-treatment difference in these two variables and other baseline variables, the results showed non-significant shorter LOS and lower mean total cost of treatment for the linezolid group among patients with no access to OHPAT.

Linezolid compared with teicoplanin for the treatment of suspected or proven Gram-positive infections

The efficacy, safety and tolerability of linezolid was compared with teicoplanin in a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicentre study of 430 patients with suspected or proven Gram-positive infection. Patients received intravenous (iv) +/- oral linezolid 600 mg every 12 h (n = 215) or iv or intramuscular teicoplanin (n = 215) for up to 28 days. Clinical outcomes in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and clinically-evaluable populations and microbiological success rates in microbiologically evaluable patients were assessed at follow-up (test of cure). Investigator assessed clinical cure rates at end of treatment (EOT) in ITT patients treated with linezolid (95.5%) were superior to those of teicoplanin (87.6%) for all infections combined, indicating a 7.9% statistically significant treatment advantage for linezolid (P = 0.005, 95% CI: 2.5, 13.2). Clinical cure rates by baseline diagnosis were consistently higher at EOT for the linezolid versus teicoplanin groups with skin and soft tissue infection (96.6% versus 92.8%), pneumonia (96.2% versus 92.9%) and bacteraemia (88.5% versus 56.7%). The 31.8% treatment advantage in bacteraemic patients (but not for those seen in the other infection categories) for linezolid-treated patients was statistically significant (P = 0.009, 95% CI: 10.2, 53.4). Bacterial eradication rates for linezolid exceeded those of teicoplanin for all infection sites combined but this did not reach statistical significance (81.9% versus 69.8%, respectively; P = 0.056). Adverse event rates were similar between the treatment groups, were mild to moderate in severity, and resolved quickly following treatment. The linezolid group experienced a higher incidence of drug related adverse events (30% versus 17%; P = 0.002), and notably of gastrointestinal effects (13.0% versus 1.9%, P = 0.001). However, antibiotic discontinuation rates as a result of drug related adverse events were similar (4.7% in the linezolid group versus 3.7%). Linezolid was clinically superior to teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections.

Hospital resource use and cost of treatment with linezolid versus teicoplanin for treatment of serious gram-positive bacterial infections among hospitalized patients from South America and Mexico: results from a multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

Linezolid is a novel oxazolidinone antibiotic that is effective for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections. The oral formulation has the potential to reduce length of stay (LOS) when used as a substitute for parenteral glycopeptide antibiotics. In a recent multinational trial comparing linezolid (i.v. followed by oral administration) with teicoplanin (i.v. alone or switched to i.m. administration), linezolid was found to have better efficacy (P = 0.005) and similar safety for treating serious gram-positive infections.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare hospital resource use (primarily LOS) and cost of treatment between linezolid and teicoplanin for hospitalized patients with serious gram-positive infections in South America and Mexico using data from the multinational trial.

METHODS

In a multinational, Phase IIIb, open-label, comparator-controlled trial, data were collected from hospitalized patients in centers in 6 South America can countries and Mexico with suspected or confirmed serious gram-positive infections. Patients were randomly assigned to receive i.v. linezolid 600 mg BID (for the entire treatment period [7-28 days] or switched to oral linezolid 600 mg BID) or i.v. teicoplanin (for the entire treatment period or switched to i.m. teicoplanin) dosed per approved prescription information. Data on direct medical resource utilization were collected for each patient, including duration and doses of study medication, location of hospitalization and LOS, comedications, tests and procedures, and outpatient service usage. Unit costs for the medical resources were obtained from secondary sources.

RESULTS

A total of 203 patients (97 treated with linezolid and 106 treated with teicoplanin) were enrolled from these 7 countries. The unadjusted results showed that compared with teicoplanin, patients treated with linezolid had a 3.1-day shorter mean i.v. antibiotic treatment duration (P < 0.001), a 2.0- to 2.2-day shorter median and mean LOS (P = 0.03), and a 311 US dollars lower mean total cost of treatment (P = NS). After controlling for age, race, sex, site of infection, inpatient location when the antibiotic treatment started, number of historical and current comorbidities, and whether the patient had a diagnosis of systemic inflammatory response syndrome or sepsis, the multivariate adjusted results were similar to the unadjusted results. The linezolid group had a 1.6-day shorter adjusted LOS or 66% greater odds of early discharge (P = 0.049) and a 335 US dollars lower adjusted mean total cost of treatment (P = NS).

CONCLUSION

Linezolid was associated with shorter LOS and duration of IV antibiotic treatment than teicoplanin for serious gram-positive infections in the population studied. Linezolid therapy has the potential to reduce the total cost of treatment.

[Teicoplanin in the treatment of bone and joint infections due to methicillin resistant staphylococci. Experience in adult patients]

We retrospectively evaluated 89 episodes of bone and joint infections due to methicillin-resistant staphylococci: 56 chronic osteomyelitis (CO), 10 septic arthritis (SA) and 23 infections associated to arthroplasties (IAA). We analyzed the efficacy of Teicoplanin (T) in three times a week or daily administration schemes and adequate surgery (AS). Also, we determined cost savings derived from outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT). The overall efficacy of T in CO and both in cases with and without implants, was higher when antibiotic therapy was associated to AS (86 vs. 46%, p = 0.001; 100 vs. 33%, p = 0.0049 and 76 vs. 50%, p = 0.09). All SA were cured. The overall efficacy of T was higher in IAA with implant removal vs. surgical debridement (100 vs. 54%, p = 0.045). In all cases, T was similarly effective when administered three times a week vs. daily administration, when associated to AS. The savings derived from OPAT were 897 days/bed and USS 179,400. Adverse effects were few and light (8 episodes, 9%). The results obtained are similar to those published in the literature and show that T administered daily or in a three times a week scheme and associated to AS, is effective and safe for the treatment of bone and joint infections. The savings derived from OPAT, mainly related to reduced hospitalization, are significant in these pathologies, which usually require long treatment periods.

Cost-minimization analysis and audit of antibiotic management of bone and joint infections with ambulatory teicoplanin, in-patient care or outpatient oral linezolid therapy

Bone and joint infections are significant causes of morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. The cost of treatment for such infections is driven primarily by the length of hospital stay. Many of these infections will require treatment with prolonged periods of parenteral antibiotic therapy. Clinicians and healthcare managers are being attracted increasingly by administering treatment in the ambulatory setting as this offers clinical, economic and quality of life advantages from both the hospital's and patient's perspective. Our retrospective audit of managing 55 treatment episodes of bone and joint infections with teicoplanin delivered in the outpatient or home setting revealed that the mean cost of care per episode of infection was less with treatment in the ambulatory setting ( pound 1749.15) compared with the in-patient setting ( pound 11 400) or compared with the hypothetical situation of treatment with oral linezolid in the home setting ( pound 2546). Teicoplanin therapeutic drug monitoring appears to be valuable in establishing optimal serum levels, which appear to correlate with good clinical outcomes. The potential for alternative day or thrice weekly dosing with teicoplanin may offer further cost advantages whilst maintaining equivalent clinical effectiveness.

[The comparative costs of vancomycin treatment versus teicoplanin in osteoarticular infection caused by methicillin-resistant staphylococci]

This clinical and economical study compared two glycopeptides regimen i.e., vancomycin and teicoplanin in the treatment of osteoarticular infection involving methicillin-resistant staphylococcus. After randomization, 15 patients (group 1) received vancomycin (23 F per gram) in continuous infusion through a central venous catheter and 15 others (group 2) intramuscular teicoplanin (311-357 F a 400 mg vial). The clinical study focused on treatment tolerance in an in-patient setting as well as in a non in-patient one. The cost analysis focused on total expenses including those of antibiotics, those of medical devices for antibiotic administration and those of the complications caused by the antibiotics use. Total expenses per patient averaged 8744 F with vancomycin and 8555 F with teicoplanin (NS). The apparent money saving by using a cheap antibiotic (i.e. vancomycin) was illusionary as one took in account the expenses for medical devices e.g., central venous catheters required to administer vancomycin and the complications due to the use of these devices.

[Vancomycin and teicoplanin use as antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery: pharmacoeconomic study]

BACKGROUND

To assess the economical impact of vancomycin use versus teicoplanin use as antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing cardiac surgery for valve replacement (VR) and coronary artery by-pass (CABS) procedures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is an ancillary cost minimization analysis of a double blinded, parallel groups, randomised clinical trial (RCT), with the main objective of comparing the safety and efficacy of these antibiotics. 500 patients were included in the study; 267 in the CABS group and 233 in the VR group. The CABS patients received 1 g vancomicin or 400 mg teicoplanin, plus 150 mg netilmicin. The VR group received a second dose of each drug after extracorporeal circulation. In order to calculate the costs we considered the direct cost of the drug, the i.v. mix and the administration costs, together with personnel and structure costs. We considered two different situations: the administration of drugs within the surgical room theatre and in the medical ward.

RESULTS

The demographic data of both groups were comparable. The frequency of severe adverse drug reactions (ADR) were similar (0.4%) in both groups, as well as the post-operative infection rates (8.6%). Differences were seen in the frequencies of low severity ADRs: 20.4% in the vancomycin group and 1.6% in the teicoplanin group. When the antibiotics were administered in the surgical room, among CABS patients the costs were 8,265 pts. for the teicoplanin group and 12,005 pts. for the vancomycin group; while among VR patients, costs were respectively 11,661 pts. and 14,528 pts. Administration costs of teicoplanin and vancomycin within a medical ward setting, however, the costs were 6,740 pts. and 2,809 pts. for CABS patients, and 5,308 pts. and 10,140 pts. for VR patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of antibiotic prophylaxis among cardiac surgery patients heavily depends on the setting and circumstances of drug administration. The minimization cost analysis indicates that teicoplanin is the most cost-effective option if the drug is administered within the surgical area, while vancomycin is the less costly option when administered within the medical ward. However, if the second option is to be chosen, it is necessary to assure the right plasmatic drug levels of the antibiotic at the beginning of the surgical procedure.

[Cost of antibiotic therapy in neutropenic patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for breast cancer]

The increase in pharmaceutical costs, especially for expensive procedures such as bone marrow transplants, has led to the study of the economic impact of febrile neutropenia in peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT). We analyzed 89 consecutive patients with breast cancer who underwent PBSCT. All patients developed febrile neutropenia and were administered an empirical intravenous regimen based on the combination of piperacillin-tazobactam and amikacin. We analyzed the direct costs of this treatment and grouped them into drug acquisition cost, administration costs (cost of the additional material), and preparation costs (time employed for the preparation and administration of the drug). We found that the overall cost was $1,110, 65% of which corresponded to the initial therapy and the rest (35%) to the use of additional antibiotics. This higher cost was especially related to the use of vancomycin or teicoplanin (50%). The acquisition costs accounted for 90% of the overall treatment costs. Thirty-six patients (40%) did not need additional antibiotics and the cost in this group was less ($663). We concluded that knowledge of the costs of pharmacological therapy for infection in PBSCT is indispensable for the appropriate development of treatment units, especially in terms of optimizing resources and comparing different therapeutic or prophylactic approaches.

Comparative pharmacoeconomic study of vancomycin and teicoplanin in intensive care patients

Randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses have not demonstrated any statistically significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to efficacy. A cost-minimization analysis was conducted to compare the economical impact of the treatment with vancomycin and teicoplanin in intensive care patients. Information on resource utilization was retrospectively collected from 100 consecutive clinical histories of patients hospitalized in a Spanish Intensive Care Unit, who had been given a glycopeptide antibiotic (50 teicoplanin and 50 vancomycin) for the treatment of a suspected or proven infection. Although personnel, material, and monitoring costs were higher in the vancomycin group, the acquisition costs and the total costs were much lower in this group, so the resulting total costs per day were 5508 ptas (33 euros) for vancomycin-treated patients and 9893 ptas (59.5 euros) for teicoplanin-treated patients. The savings with vancomycin for a 10-day course of treatment would be approximately 40697 ptas (244.5 euros) per patient. Results were consistent for a variety of conditions that were included in the sensitivity analysis.

Randomized prospective study comparing cost-effectiveness of teicoplanin and vancomycin as second-line empiric therapy for infection in neutropenic patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The current health-care philosophy dictates that new therapies should always be evaluated for their economic impact. Along with acquisition cost, the cost of delivery, monitoring, adverse effects and treatment failure must also be considered when determining the total cost of therapy. These auxiliary costs can be significant and greatly alter the overall cost of a drug treatment. We conducted a prospective randomized study to evaluate the efficacy, safety and cost of vancomycin and teicoplanin therapy in patients with neutropenia, after the failure of empirical treatment with a combination of piperacillin/tazobactam and amikacin.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Seventy-six febrile episodes from 66 patients with hematologic malignancies under treatment, neutropenia (neutrophils <500/mm3) and fever (38 degrees C twice or 38.5 degrees C once) resistant to the combination piperacillin/tazobactam and amikacin were included in the study.

RESULTS

Primary success of second-line therapy was obtained in 35 cases (46%) with no significant difference between vancomycin (17/38) and teicoplanin arms (18/38). No difference in renal or hepatic toxicity related to the antibiotic therapy was observed. The average cost per patient according to glycopeptide used was $450+/-180 for the teicoplanin group and $473+/-347 for the vancomycin group. Interestingly, in the teicoplanin arm, drug acquisition accounted for 97% of the total cost, while in the vancomycin arm administration and monitoring play an important role in overall costs.

INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our pharmacoeconomic analysis demonstrates that teicoplanin and vancomycin can be administered in neutropenic hematologic patients with similar efficacy and direct costs.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial comparing teicoplanin and cefazolin as antibiotic prophylaxis in prosthetic vascular surgery

To compare efficacy, tolerability, and cost of antibiotic prophylaxis with teicoplanin and cefazolin in clean prosthetic vascular surgery, a randomized, prospective, double-blind study was performed at the Vascular Surgery Unit of a tertiary-care university hospital. Two-hundred thirty-eight consecutive patients undergoing elective, clean, abdominal or lower-limb prosthetic vascular surgery were allocated to receive a single intravenous dose of teicoplanin (400 mg) or cefazolin (2 g) at the induction of anesthesia. Surgical-site infections occurred in 5.9% of teicoplanin recipients (4.2% wound infection, 1.7% graft infection) and 1.7% of cefazolin recipients (1.7% wound infection, 0% graft infection) (P=0.195). Other postoperative infections occurred in 10% of teicoplanin recipients (pneumonia 7%, urinary tract infection 3%) and 12% of cefazolin recipients (pneumonia 7%, urinary tract infection 2.5%, bloodstream infections 2.5%). Overall mortality rate was 3.4% in teicoplanin recipients (4 patients) and 2.5% in cefazolin recipients (3 patients). Infective deaths occurred in one patient for each group. The two prophylactic regimens were well tolerated. Cost savings of US $52,510 favoring cefazolin were related to the lower acquisition cost (US $1034 vs US $4740) and to the shorter duration of the hospital stay (1762 days vs 1928 days). Cefazolin can still be regarded as the drug of choice for prophylaxis in clean vascular surgery.

Non-inpatient use of teicoplanin

Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antibiotic which was introduced into clinical use in 1988. Its activity against most Gram-positive bacteria, including the emergent multiply resistant species, its ease of administration and safety commend its continued use well into the next millennium. The provision of health care in alternative settings such as the home or outpatient clinic has grown in importance, both in Europe and North America. One such service is the provision of parenteral antibiotics for treating a variety of infections in the non-inpatient setting. This paper aims to review and condense the current published experience of teicoplanin in this setting. Evidence suggests that teicoplanin can be administered effectively using a range of flexible, convenient and safe dosing schedules and is a highly cost-effective therapeutic option for treating in the non-inpatient setting many chronic infections e.g. osteomyelitis and endocarditis, and some acute infections.

A survey of the use of teicoplanin in patients with haematological malignancies and solid tumours

A significant number of open and comparative studies have now addressed the use of teicoplanin in the treatment of documented or presumed infection in patients with haematological and non-haematological malignancy. Available evidence suggests that teicoplanin is an effective agent against such infections, with an excellent safety profile. The use of teicoplanin and vancomycin may be justified as part of the initial management of clinically infected right atrial catheters in patients with malignancy. The first-line use of glycopeptides may also be appropriate in units where streptococcal and methicillin resistant staphylococcal infections are prevalent. However, such a policy should be reviewed regularly. Except in the above situations, a delay in the introduction of either teicoplanin or vancomycin in cancer patients does not appear to produce any excess mortality, but there may be some additional morbidity in terms of fever and malaise. The introduction of glycopeptides as second-line agents is indicated for sensitive, microbiologically documented infections and for patients who have not responded to empirical, first-line therapy. Non-inpatient treatment with teicoplanin is an area of ongoing interest and may be justified on both humanitarian and pharmacoeconomic grounds. The use of glycopeptides in the prophylactic setting remains controversial and should be avoided while the emergence of resistance, particularly in enterococci, should be monitored closely.

Impact of glycopeptide therapy after hospital discharge on inpatient costs: a comparison of teicoplanin and vancomycin

Data were collected prospectively from 59 patients receiving vancomycin and 20 patients receiving teicoplanin. The mean daily drug cost was 52.40 pounds for teicoplanin and 31.13 pounds for vancomycin; the 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for the difference in mean drug costs varied between 14.40 pounds and 28.10 pounds in favour of vancomycin. Use of a loading dose of teicoplanin significantly increased mean daily drug costs if the duration of treatment was less than 10 days. Costs of preparation, administration and monitoring were consistently higher for vancomycin than for teicoplanin and inclusion of these costs reduced the difference in mean daily costs to 13.01 pounds (95% CI 6.10 to 19.90 pounds). In Dundee 11 of 20 patients who received teicoplanin had received some of their treatment after discharge from the hospital and a survey of UK hospitals confirmed that teicoplanin treatment after discharge is being used in a wide range of conditions. The median proportion of teicoplanin treatment in Dundee given after discharge was 28.4% for each patient who received the drug: the median proportion of non-inpatient therapy was 50% per patient of those who received any teicoplanin treatment after discharge. Assuming that teicoplanin costs 20 pounds per day more than vancomycin, use of teicoplanin implies an investment of 70.42 pounds to gain one hospital day through earlier discharge of patients receiving teicoplanin.

Teicoplanin. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in the treatment of gram-positive infections

Teicoplanin, a glycopeptide antibiotic, is active against Gram-positive organisms, including methicillin-resistant staphylococci. It has demonstrated similar efficacy to vancomycin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections in febrile patients with neutropenia; fewer comparative data are available in patients with other infection types. Compared with vancomycin, teicoplanin is associated with less nephrotoxicity, appears to cause fewer anaphylactoid reactions, requires less monitoring and is more convenient to administer (once daily by intravenous bolus or intramuscular injection vs 2 to 4 times daily by intravenous infusion). Two European cost-minimisation studies have demonstrated that while the acquisition cost per dose of teicoplanin was approximately twice that of vancomycin, the cost of 2 weeks' therapy with either agent was similar (difference of 1 to 2%). However, in order to fully explore potential differences between these agents, a full economic analysis which considers all treatment-related costs is needed. Home therapy of Gram-positive infections, a setting in which teicoplanin may be preferred over vancomycin because of its tolerability profile and ease of administration, is particularly worthy of future economic study. Thus, there are a number of areas needing further study before the optimum formulary positioning of teicoplanin can be definitely stated. Nevertheless, present evidence suggests that teicoplanin is likely to have pharmacoeconomic advantages over vancomycin in at least some situations.

Use of teicoplanin in community medicine

Administration of parenteral antibiotics to outpatients is increasingly used to reduce hospital costs, to reduce loss of earnings for the patient and to improve the quality of life in patients requiring prolonged antibiotic treatment. The glycopeptides are required for treatment of infections caused by methicillin resistant staphylococci and some enterococci, or for treatment of patients allergic to beta-lactam agents. For home therapy, teicoplanin has some advantages over vancomycin in that it requires only once-daily bolus administration, does not necessitate monitoring of serum concentrations and offers the choice of intravenous or intramuscular administration. Teicoplanin has been used to complete treatment of endocarditis at home in selected patients, streptococcal disease being the most suitable form of endocarditis for this treatment. In open trials, teicoplanin has been found effective in home therapy of osteomyelitis but, as with other agents, prolonged dosage can be associated with adverse effects. It has also been used for home treatment of infections of the respiratory tract, intravascular catheters and soft tissue. Despite its higher acquisition costs, teicoplanin is to be preferred over vancomycin because of the reduced administration and assay costs and fewer adverse effects.

Treating bone and joint infections with teicoplanin: hospitalization vs outpatient cost issues

The relative cost of outpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment of bone and joint infections with the investigational drug teicoplanin was compared with the cost of inpatient treatment. A private practice infectious disease group used teicoplanin to treat 49 patients (53 treatment courses) with bone and joint infections. The outpatient treatment program "saved" $403,680 compared with inpatient treatment, based on per diem reimbursements of $700 for inpatient treatment and $220 for outpatient treatment. Any cost analysis should be interpreted carefully because accurate calculation of outpatient treatment savings requires distinguishing among actual costs, charges, and reimbursements. In addition, there may be hidden costs related to lack of efficacy, toxicity, or litigation. Consideration should also be given to whoever is the beneficiary of the savings. Is it the indemnity insurance company, the provider, or the patient? Specific characteristics of the treatment, including ease of use, effectiveness, and monitoring requirement, may affect the savings. Our study showed that teicoplanin allows once-daily dosing, is easily administered, is generally efficacious, and has minimum requirements for blood level monitoring. These characteristics improve the cost effectiveness of using the drug in an outpatient treatment program.

Cost implications of home care on serious infections

More than 250,000 Americans will receive home IV drug therapy this year. Antibiotics will account for two-thirds of this care. Over 60% of infections treated at home are caused by gram-positive cocci, with staphylococci accounting for approximately 24% of the pathogens. Bone and joint infections represent the most common diagnoses among patients receiving parenteral antibiotics at home, and many of the infections treated at home were initially acquired in the hospital. The most common serious complications of coronary bypass surgery, the most frequently performed operation in many hospitals, are sternal wound infections are methicillin-resistant The major pathogenic causes of these infections are methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. These complications are usually treated with prolonged inpatient IV therapy and surgery. In a study in which patients with sternal wound infections or mediastinitis secondary to coronary bypass surgery were treated with teicoplanin, preliminary results showed that the mean postoperative hospital stay was decreased by more than 7 days compared with patients receiving other types of antibiotic therapy. This was accomplished by changing from intravenous to intramuscular therapy as soon as the patient became stabilized and then discharging the patient after an additional 2 days to complete intramuscular therapy at home. In addition to enhancing the quality of life for the patient by allowing early hospital discharge and early ambulation, home therapy offers the additional benefits of decreasing the risk of cross infection to other patients, as well as to the already infected patient.

Cost effectiveness of teicoplanin and ceftriaxone: a once-daily antibiotic regimen

There is a high incidence of staphylococcal infection in febrile neutropenic children with a central venous line. These patients are usually initially treated with empiric antimicrobial therapy that provides broad spectrum coverage. In a study evaluating a conventional regimen of vancomycin 40 mg/kg/d plus ceftazidime 100 mg/kg/d given in three divided doses to 41 febrile children with leukemia or lymphoma, the response rate was 87% after a mean treatment duration of 16 days. A once-daily regimen of an investigational antibiotic, teicoplanin, 10 mg/kg/d and ceftriaxone 50 mg/kg/d evaluated in 47 febrile children with leukemia was found to produce an equivalent rate of success and require the same mean duration of therapy. A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the economic impact of replacing the conventional regimen with once-daily teicoplanin-ceftriaxone revealed that a 16-day course of the latter treatment would produce cost savings in terms of the cost of the antibiotics and other nonreusable materials, as well as in nursing time. Using French drug pricing data, the savings calculated for drugs and materials were 478 FF ($80 US). The teicoplanin-ceftriaxone regimen saved approximately 14 hours in nursing time per patient. Extrapolations based on estimates of hospital occupancy and the ratio of days a patient receives antibiotic therapy to the total duration of hospital stay suggest that an average hospital ward could achieve monthly costsavings of 7,641 FF ($1,273 US) for antibiotics and materials.

Teicoplanin vs vancomycin: cost-effectiveness comparisons

The rising incidence of methicillin-resistant staphylococci and resistant enterococci in recent years has led to increased use of vancomycin as an active combatant in the treatment of gram-positive infections. Teicoplanin is an investigational glycopeptide that shares a similar spectrum of activity with vancomycin and appears to have similar efficacy. Teicoplanin offers several theoretical advantages compared with vancomycin including once-daily dosing, fewer side effects, and the option for intramuscular administration. While these may be perceived as substantial advances in the glycopeptide class of antibiotics, teicoplanin will probably not replace the now generically available vancomycin on hospital formularies. If competitively priced as a once-daily dosing regimen, teicoplanin will likely gain initial acceptance as an alternative in patients with an intolerance to vancomycin infusion-related side effects or in patients placed on combination aminoglycoside therapy for extended periods of treatment, as an intramuscular antibiotic in patients with poor venous access, and for routine antibiotic prophylaxis where protection from resistant gram-positive pathogens is important. The use of teicoplanin in the hospital may become more widespread as its side effect profile and economic advantages of less frequent dosing compared with vancomycin become better understood.

Current treatment of gram-positive infections: focus on efficacy, safety, and cost minimalization analysis of teicoplanin

The current health care environment has had a significant impact on hospital Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee formulary decisions. In evaluating a new therapy for formulary inclusion, a cost savings along with equivalent or an improvement in patient care and safety is optimal. Teicoplanin is an investigational glycopeptide antimicrobial agent with a spectrum of activity similar to vancomycin. Unlike vancomycin, however, teicoplanin has a long elimination half-life permitting administration once daily, and is well tolerated when given intramuscularly. In addition, teicoplanin is associated with a favorable safety profile. Red man syndrome does not appear to be a significant clinical problem. Results of our cost minimalization analysis using the average acquisition costs of vancomycin revealed that teicoplanin (400 mg), at an average acquisition cost of less than $28.46 when administered intravenously and $30.93 when administered intramuscularly, offers a clinically efficacious, safe, and less expensive alternative to vancomycin therapy.