Comparison of the Pharmacoeconomics of Calfactant and Poractant Alfa in Surfactant Replacement erapy.

objectiveTo compare the pharmacy costs of calfactant (Infasurf, ONY, Inc.) and poractant alfa (Curosurf, Chiesi USA, Inc., Cary, NC).

methodsThe University of South Alabama Children's and Women's Hospital switched from calfactant to poractant alfa in 2013 and back to calfactant in 2015. Retrospectively, we used deidentified data from pharmacy records that provided type of surfactant administered, gestational age, birth weight, and number of doses on each patient. We examined differences in the number of doses by gestational ages and the differences in costs by birth weight cohorts because cost per dose is based on weight.

resultsThere were 762 patients who received calfactant and 432 patients who received poractant alfa. The average number of doses required per patient was 1.6 administrations for calfactant-treated patients and 1.7 administrations for poractant alfa-treated patients, p = 0.03. A higher percentage of calfactant patients needed only 1 dose (53%) than poractant alfa patients (47%). The distribution of the number of doses for calfactant-treated patients was significantly lower than for the poractant alfa-patients, p < 0.001. Gestational age had no consistent effect on the number of doses required for either calfactant or poractant alfa. Per patient cost was higher for poractant alfa than for calfactant in all birth weight cohorts. Average per patient cost was $1160.62 for poractant alfa, 38% higher than the average per patient cost for calfactant ($838.34). Using poractant alfa for 22 months is estimated to have cost $202,732.75 more than it would have cost if the hospital had continued using calfactant.

conclusionOur experience showed a strong pharmacoeconomic advantage for the use of calfactant compared to the use of poractant alfa because of similar average dosing and lower per patient drug costs.