Cost-effectiveness analysis of intravenous antibiotics for treating sepsis patients: Case study at Khu Muang Hospital

Abstract

Sepsis is a critical condition that poses a significant risk to patient survival, necessitating prompt and effective treatment in hospital settings. Rapid diagnosis and timely antibiotic administration are essential to improve patient outcomes and reduce mortality rates. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various intravenous antibiotics, specifically Ceftazidime, Piperacillin-Tazobactam (Tazocin) and Meropenem compare to Ceftriaxone in the management of sepsis at Khu Muang Hospital in Buriram, Thailand. A retrospective analysis was conducted involving 204 adult patients diagnosed with sepsis from October 2022 to September 2024. Data collected included demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory test results, direct medical costs, and treatment outcomes. The average length of stay, treatment costs, and effectiveness rates were analyzed. The findings revealed that Meropenem had the highest average length of hospital stay at 7.00 days, followed by Ceftazidime at 6.71 days, Ceftriaxone at 6.38 days, and Piperacillin- Tazobactam at 4.20 days. In terms of costs, Ceftazidime had the highest average treatment cost at 5,578.02 Baht, while Piperacillin-Tazobactam was the most cost-effective option at 3,744.95 Baht. Effectiveness rates were highest for Meropenem at 100%, followed by Piperacillin- Tazobactam at 80%, Ceftazidime at 71%, and Ceftriaxone at 65%. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) analysis indicated that Ceftazidime had an ICER of 2,827.17 Baht, Meropenem had an ICER of 298.31 Baht and Piperacillin-Tazobactam showed a cost-saving strategy with an ICER of -11,089.60 Baht. The research highlights the importance of ICER analysis in clinical decisionmaking, demonstrating that Piperacillin-Tazobactam represents the most cost-effective option in the treatment of sepsis when compared to Ceftriaxone, followed by meropenem and ceftazidime respectively. This study emphasizes the need for healthcare providers to consider both cost and effectiveness when selecting appropriate antibiotic therapies.

References

M. Singer et al., “The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3),” JAMA, vol. 315, no. 8, pp. 801–810, 2016.

T. R. T. G. A. B. et al., “Time-to-antibiotics and clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a prospective nationwide multicenter cohort study,” Critical Care, vol. 26, no. 1, 2022. doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03883-0.

M. L. Martínez et al., “An approach to antibiotic treatment in patients with sepsis,” J Thorac Dis, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1007-1021, Mar. 2020.

P. McEwan et al., “The cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in treating high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: An economic evaluation using data from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial,” Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1020- 1029, 2021. doi: 10.1111/DOM.14308.

C. Deerochanawong et al., “Cost–Utility Analysis of Dapagliflozin as an Add-On to Standard Treatment for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and High Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in Thailand,” Diabetes Therapy, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 1947-1963, 2021. doi: 10.1007/S13300-021-01088-W.

A. M. Higgins, J. E. Brooker, M. Mackie, D. J. Cooper, and A. H. Harris, “Health economic evaluations of sepsis interventions in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review,” J. Intensive Care, vol. 8, no. 1, 2020.

J. Rello, F. Valenzuela-Sánchez, M. Ruiz-Rodriguez, and S. Moyano, “Sepsis: A review of advances in management,” Adv. Ther., vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 2393–2411, 2017.

S. B. Bhavani et al., “Cost-Utility Analysis of Dapagliflozin Compared to Sulfonylureas for Type 2 Diabetes as Second-Line Treatment in Indian Healthcare Payer’s Perspective,” ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research, vol. 13, pp. 897-907, 2021. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S328433.

P. D. Tamma, S. L. Aitken, R. A. Bonomo, A. J. Mathers, D. van Duin, and C. J. Clancy, “Infectious diseases society of America guidance on the treatment of extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E), carbapenemresistant Enterobacterales (CRE), andPseudomonas aeruginosawith difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR-P. aeruginosa),” Clin. Infect. Dis., vol. 72, no. 7, pp. 1109–1116, 2021.

โครงการประเมินด้านเทคโนโลยีและนโยบายด้านสุขภาพ, “คู่มือการประเมินเทคโนโลยีด้านสุขภาพสำหรับประเทศไทย ฉบับที่ 2 พ.ศ. 2556,” 1st ed. กรุงเทพฯ: บริษัท โรงพิมพ์ วัชรินทร์ พี.พี., 2556.