title: Modeling the economic impact of linezolid versus vancomycin in confirmed nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  We compared the economic impacts of linezolid and vancomycin for the treatment of hospitalized patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia.
  
  
  METHODS
  We used a 4-week decision tree model incorporating published data and expert opinion on clinical parameters, resource use and costs (in 2012 US dollars), such as efficacy, mortality, serious adverse events, treatment duration and length of hospital stay. The results presented are from a US payer perspective. The base case first-line treatment duration for patients with MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia was 10 days. Clinical treatment success (used for the cost-effectiveness ratio) and failure due to lack of efficacy, serious adverse events or mortality were possible clinical outcomes that could impact costs. Cost of treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness per successfully treated patient were calculated for linezolid versus vancomycin. Univariate (one-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The model allowed us to calculate the total base case inpatient costs as $46,168 (linezolid) and $46,992 (vancomycin). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favored linezolid (versus vancomycin), with lower costs ($824 less) and greater efficacy (+2.7% absolute difference in the proportion of patients successfully treated for MRSA nosocomial pneumonia). Approximately 80% of the total treatment costs were attributed to hospital stay (primarily in the intensive care unit). The results of our probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that linezolid is the cost-effective alternative under varying willingness to pay thresholds.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  These model results show that linezolid has a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared to vancomycin for MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia, largely attributable to the higher clinical trial response rate of patients treated with linezolid. The higher drug acquisition cost of linezolid was offset by lower treatment failure-related costs and fewer days of hospitalization.
authors: Dipen A
authors: DA
authors: Patel
authors: Andrew F
authors: AF
authors: Shorr
authors: Jean
authors: J
authors: Chastre
authors: Michael
authors: M
authors: Niederman
authors: Andrew
authors: A
authors: Simor
authors: Jennifer M
authors: JM
authors: Stephens
authors: Claudie
authors: C
authors: Charbonneau
authors: Xin
authors: X
authors: Gao
authors: Dilip
authors: D
authors: Nathwani
mesh_terms: D000081:Acetamides / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics*; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis / Q000379:methods; D003428:Cross Infection / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000191:economics*; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D006801:Humans; D000069349:Linezolid; D055624:Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus / Q000187:drug effects; D018803:Models, Economic; D023303:Oxazolidinones / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics*; D011023:Pneumonia, Staphylococcal / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000191:economics*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D014640:Vancomycin / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics*
chemical_list: D000081:Acetamides; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents; D023303:Oxazolidinones; D014640:Vancomycin; D000069349:Linezolid