Imipenem resistance of Pseudomonas in pneumonia: a systematic literature review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pneumonia, and particularly nosocomial (NP) and ventilator-associated pneumonias (VAP), results in high morbidity and costs. NPs in particular are likely to be caused by <it>Pseudomonas aeruginosa </it>(PA), ~20% of which in observational studies are resistant to imipenem. We sought to identify the burden of PA imipenem resistance in pneumonia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of imipenem treatment for pneumonia published in English between 1993 and 2008. We extracted study, population and treatment characteristics, and proportions caused by PA. Endpoints of interest were: PA resistance to initial antimicrobial treatment, clinical success, microbiologic eradication and on-treatment emergence of resistance of PA.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 46 studies identified, 20 (N = 4,310) included patients with pneumonia (imipenem 1,667, PA 251; comparator 1,661, PA 270). Seven were double blind, and 7 included US data. Comparator arms included a β-lactam (17, [penicillin 6, carbapenem 4, cephalosporin 7, monobactam 1]), aminoglycoside 2, vancomycin 1, and a fluoroquinolone 5; 5 employed double coverage. Thirteen focused exclusively on pneumonia and 7 included pneumonia and other diagnoses. Initial resistance was present in 14.6% (range 4.2-24.0%) of PA isolates in imipenem and 2.5% (range 0.0-7.4%) in comparator groups. Pooled clinical success rates for PA were 45.2% (range 0.0-72.0%) for imipenem and 74.9% (range 0.0-100.0%) for comparator regimens. Microbiologic eradication was achieved in 47.6% (range 0.0%-100.0%) of isolates in the imipenem and 52.8% (range 0.0%-100.0%) in the comparator groups. Resistance emerged in 38.7% (range 5.6-77.8%) PA isolates in imipenem and 21.9% (range 4.8-56.5%) in comparator groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In the 15 years of RCTs of imipenem for pneumonia, PA imipenem resistance rates are high, and PA clinical success and microbiologic eradication rates are directionally lower for imipenem than for comparators. Conversely, initial and treatment-emergent resistance is more likely with the imipenem than the comparator regimens.</p

Economic Evaluation of Weekly Epoetin Alfa versus Biweekly Darbepoetin Alfa for Chemotherapy-Induced Anaemia: Evidence from a 16-Week Randomised Trial

Introduction: A 16-week, open-label, multicentre, randomised trial of weekly epoetin alfa 40_000 units versus biweekly darbepoetin alfa 200mug among 358 patients with solid-tumour cancers and chemotherapy-induced anaemia demonstrated superior haematological outcomes with epoetin alfa. We sought to compare resource use, costs and clinical outcomes between treatment groups and report the results using a cost-consequences framework. Methods: Pre-specified methods were used to assign costs ($US, year 2004-5 values) to medical resources and patient time using a societal perspective. Costs for inpatient care, outpatient care and physician services were based on US Medicare reimbursement rates. Indirect costs assigned to patient time spent receiving study medication were based on the mean hourly wage in the US. In the base-case analysis, the average wholesale price was used to assign costs to medications. Clinical outcomes included all haemoglobin levels and transfusions recorded throughout the trial. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of different costing methods, cost sources, perspectives and methods to assign haemoglobin values following a blood transfusion. Results: Over a mean follow-up duration of 11.8 weeks, the average cost of study medications and their administration was the single largest component of total costs and was similar between groups (epoetin alfa$US5979 and darbepoetin alfa $US5935, difference$US44; 95% CI -590, 692). There were no significant differences in the proportions of patients hospitalised (epoetin alfa 24.6%, darbepoetin alfa 22.0%; p_=_0.57). Patients randomised to epoetin alfa experienced more inpatient days, on average, than patients randomised to darbepoetin alfa (2.6 vs 1.6, 95% CI for the difference, 0.07, 2.27). However, with regard to transfusions, patients in the epoetin alfa arm required fewer units of blood than patients in the darbepoetin alfa arm (0.46 vs 0.88, 95% CI for the difference -0.77, -0.08). Mean total costs, comprising costs for study medications and their administration, inpatient care, transfusions, unplanned radiation therapy, haematology and laboratory services, chemotherapy and non-chemotherapy drugs and indirect costs were $US14_976 in the epoetin alfa arm compared with$US14_101 in the darbepoetin alfa arm, a difference of $US875 (95$US2374 vs $US1520; 95% CI for difference -33, 1955). Assessments of multiple clinical measures demonstrated improved outcomes with epoetin alfa relative to darbepoetin alfa. Conclusion: Most clinical outcome measures suggested greater improvement with epoetin alfa relative to darbepoetin alfa, but most costs for both agents appeared similar. Decision makers must evaluate the differences in costs and efficacy measures that are most relevant from their perspectives.Anaemia, Antineoplastics, Cost-analysis, Darbepoetin-alfa, Epoetin-alfa