An open-label, pragmatic, randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of daptomycin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection

Teresa L Kauf, Peggy McKinnon, G Ralph Corey, John Bedolla, Paul F Riska, Matthew Sims, Luis Jauregui-Peredo, Bruce Friedman, James D Hoehns, Renée-Claude Mercier, Julia Garcia-Diaz, Susan K Brenneman, David Ng, Thomas Lodise, Teresa L Kauf, Peggy McKinnon, G Ralph Corey, John Bedolla, Paul F Riska, Matthew Sims, Luis Jauregui-Peredo, Bruce Friedman, James D Hoehns, Renée-Claude Mercier, Julia Garcia-Diaz, Susan K Brenneman, David Ng, Thomas Lodise

Abstract

Background: Treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) places a tremendous burden on the health care system. Understanding relative resource utilization associated with different antimicrobials is important for decision making by patients, health care providers, and payers.

Methods: The authors conducted an open-label, pragmatic, randomized (1:1) clinical study (N = 250) to compare the effectiveness of daptomycin with that of vancomycin for treatment of patients hospitalized with cSSSI caused by suspected or documented methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. The primary study end point was infection-related length of stay (IRLOS). Secondary end points included health care resource utilization, cost, clinical response, and patient-reported outcomes. Patient assessments were performed daily until the end of antibiotic therapy or until hospital discharge, and at 14 days and 30 days after discharge.

Results: No difference was found for IRLOS, total LOS, and total inpatient cost between cohorts. Hospital LOS contributed 85.9% to the total hospitalization cost, compared with 6.4% for drug costs. Daptomycin showed a nonsignificant trend toward a higher clinical success rate, compared with vancomycin, at treatment days 2 and 3. In the multivariate analyses, vancomycin was associated with a lower likelihood of day 2 clinical success (odds ratio [OR] = 0.498, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.249-0.997; P < 0.05).

Conclusion: This study did not provide conclusive evidence of the superiority of one treatment over the other in terms of clinical, economic, or patient outcomes. The data suggest that physician and patient preference, rather than drug acquisition cost, should be the primary driver of initial antibiotic selection for hospitalized patients with cSSSI.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01419184 (Date: August 16, 2011).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Mean inpatient costs by components. Drug cost calculation assumes waste of partial daptomycin vials. P = NS for all. Ward/unit cost was defined as the cost care in a particular unit or ward. Adjunctive procedures included incision/drainage, surgical debridement/excision, amputation, device removal/replacement, wound specialist services, and physical therapy. Radiology tests included radiography, medical resonance imaging, ultrasound, and computed tomography. WAC, wholesale acquisition cost
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Proportion of patients achieving clinical success by day 2 and day 3: overall (a), by infection type (b), and by pathogen (c). Clinical success was defined as improvement or cure. a Odds ratio (OR) for vancomycin compared with daptomycin. b Clinical success rates by infection type, excluding the 4 daptomycin and 4 vancomycin patients with “other” infection types. c Clinical success rates by pathogen, includr known S. aureus infection for those patients with a culture. MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. See Table 3 for sample sizes

References

    1. Rosner AJ, Becker DL, Wong AH, Miller E, Conly JM. The costs and consequences of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection treatments in Canada. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2004;15:213–220.
    1. Nathwani D. Impact of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections on key health economic outcomes: does reducing the length of hospital stay matter? J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003;51(Suppl 2):ii37–ii44.
    1. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:1624–1632. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.12.1624.
    1. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, Tunis S, Bergel E, Harvey I, Magid DJ, Chalkidou K. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:464–475. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011.
    1. Arbeit RD, Maki D, Tally FP, Campanaro E, Eisenstein BI. The safety and efficacy of daptomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:1673–1681. doi: 10.1086/420818.
    1. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, Everett ED, Dellinger P, Goldstein EJ, Gorbach SL, Hirschmann JV, Kaplan EL, Montoya JG, Wade JC, Infectious Diseases Society of America Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41:1373–1406. doi: 10.1086/497143.
    1. Cubicin (daptomycin for injection) [package insert]. Lexington, MA: Cubist Pharmaceuticals; 2013.
    1. Cleeland CS. Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form). Pain Research Group. MD Anderson Center. Houston, TX; 1991. [].
    1. The EuroQol Group EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Overview of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). 2014. [].
    1. Aggregate Hospital Payment-to-cost Ratios for Private Payers, Medicare and Medicaid, 1991 –2011. Trendwatch Chartbook. 2014. Table 4.4. [].
    1. Davis SL, McKinnon PS, Hall LM, Delgado G, Jr, Rose W, Wilson RF, Rybak MJ. Daptomycin versus vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections: clinical and economic outcomes. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27:1611–1618. doi: 10.1592/phco.27.12.1611.
    1. Stryjewski ME, Szczech LA, Benjamin DK, Jr, Inrig JK, Kanafani ZA, Engemann JJ, Chu VH, Joyce MJ, Reller LB, Corey GR, Fowler VG., Jr Use of vancomycin or first-generation cephalosporins for the treatment of hemodialysis-dependent patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:190–196. doi: 10.1086/510386.
    1. Darko W, Medicis JJ, Smith A, Guharoy R, Lehmann DE. Mississippi mud no more: cost-effectiveness of pharmacokinetic dosage adjustment of vancomycin to prevent nephrotoxicity. Pharmacotherapy. 2003;23:643–650. doi: 10.1592/phco.23.5.643.32199.
    1. Karam CM, McKinnon PS, Neuhauser MM, Rybak MJ. Outcome assessment of minimizing vancomycin monitoring and dosing adjustments. Pharmacotherapy. 1999;19:257–266. doi: 10.1592/phco.19.4.257.30933.
    1. Buesching DP, Luce BR, Berger ML. The role of private industry in pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1:147–156. doi: 10.2217/cer.12.9.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅