Cost-effectiveness analysis of cefepime compared with ceftazidime in intensive care unit patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia

The efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime and cefepime we re evaluated in a prospective, noninterventional, investigator-blinded stud y involving 100 patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia. There were 50 pa tients in each group. Clinical success rates were 60% and 78% for patients treated with ceftazidime and cefepime, respectively (P = .05). Microbiologi c eradication rates were 55% for ceftazidime and 77% for cefepime (P = .04) . In those patients in whom Pseudomonas aeruginosa was isolated, the organi sm was eradicated in 14 (70%) of 20 cefepime patients and in seven (50%) of 14 ceftazidime patients. The frequency of concomitant antibiotic use was l ess in the cefepime group (ceftazidime, 37 [74%] of 50 patients; cefepime, 22 [44%] of 50 patients; P = .004), particularly with vancomycin (ceftazidi me, 11 [22%] of 50 patients; cefepime, one [2%] of 50 patients). Cefepime w as more cost-effective than ceftazidime (ceftazidime, $395.93 +/- $355.22; cefepime, $266.59 +/- $200.17; P = .05). Sensitivity analysis of efficacy r ates demonstrated that ceftazidime would have to be 51% more effective than cefepime to change the economic outcome. In conclusion, these data support cefepime as a cost-effective alternative to ceftazidime in the therapy for hospital-acquired pneumonia.