Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15137883›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2004

Drotrecogin alfa (activated): a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in severe sepsis.

James E Frampton, Rachel H Foster

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. [The cost of sepsis].Der Anaesthesist · 2006
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

James E FramptonAdis International Limited, Auckland, New Zealand. demail@adis.co.nz
Rachel H Foster
Auckland Institute of Studies · NZBayer (New Zealand) · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drotrecogin alfa (activated) [Xigris] (DAA), the recombinant form of human activated protein C, is approved as an adjunctive therapy for patients with severe sepsis (sepsis associated with > or = 1 organ system failure [OSF]). In the international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled PROWESS (Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis) study, the absolute reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality with intravenous DAA 24 micro g/kg/h for 96 hours plus conventional care versus conventional care alone was 6.1%. Although lacking statistical power, a prospectively planned subgroup analysis of this study suggested that the absolute reduction in mortality increased in patients with a baseline APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II score of > or = 25 or > or = 2 OSFs, with no clear treatment effect in patients with an APACHE II score of < or = 24 or 1 OSF. Three fully published cost-effectiveness/cost-utility models of DAA plus conventional care relative to conventional care alone adopted a national healthcare payer's and/or societal perspective in North America. The base-case (baseline) discounted incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) with DAA for all patients with severe sepsis was $US15,801-33,300 (year of costing 2000-2002). The results were more favourable for patients with an APACHE II score of > or = 25 ($US10,833-19,723 per LYG), but considerably worse for patients with an APACHE II score of < or = 24 based on a post hoc reanalysis by the US FDA. Among several fully or partly published cost-effectiveness/cost-utility models that adopted a national healthcare payer's perspective in continental Western European countries, the base-case (baseline) undiscounted incremental cost per LYG was broadly similar and more favourable for patients with > or = 2 OSFs (9660-11,300 euros; year of costing/publication 1998/1999, 2000, 2002 or 2003) than for all patients with severe sepsis (13,436-15,071 euros) in those studies that reported both analyses. The DAA acquisition cost accounts for up to 95% of the additional cost of using the drug. In conclusion, DAA is a major advance in the treatment of severe sepsis, based on the significant mortality reduction observed in the PROWESS study. From a hospital/hospital pharmacy perspective, the drug is associated with a high acquisition cost and a small increase in other short-term costs. From a societal or national healthcare payer's perspective, however, its administration to patients who meet the PROWESS study inclusion criteria, especially individuals with more severe disease (e.g APACHE II score of > or =25 and/or > or = 2 OSFs), has a lifetime cost-effectiveness profile that compares well to that of many widely accepted therapies.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsClinical Trials as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisEuropeHealth Care CostsHumansNorth AmericaProtein CRecombinant ProteinsSepsisTreatment OutcomeAnti-Infective Agentsdrotrecogin alfa activatedProtein CRecombinant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID15137883
OpenAlexW1992002888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.