ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem in ventilator-associated pneumonia.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVentilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a prominent cause of morbidity and mortality in intensive care unit patients. Ceftolozane/tazobactam could be a cost-effective treatment option prior to culture test result for treatment of VAP. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem in Colombia.
methodsWe constructed a cost-effectiveness model using a short-term decision tree, to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of C/T for the treatment of patients VAB versus meropenem. The model was analyzed probabilistically, and a value of information (VOI) analysis was conducted to inform the value of conducting further research to reduce current uncertainties in the evidence base. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) value of US$4,487.
resultsMeropenem has a lower cost of US$ 6042, while CT has a higher cost of US$ 6324, with an incremental cost of US$ 281 compared to Meropenem. In terms of effectiveness, the probability of cure (C/T = 72%, Meropenem = 85%). CT shows a slightly higher effectiveness with an incremental effectiveness of 1.0%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is calculated at US$ 27,869 per cured patient. The base case results were robust to most of variations in utilities, transition probabilities, relative risk. The price threshold analysis for the cost for intravenous powder for injection of CT (1 g) shows if the cost per injection es lower than US$36; that it a reduction of 32% in it cost, this alternative is cost-effective compared to meropenem.
conclusionCeftolozane/tazobactam is not a cost-effective option compared to Meropenem to treat patients with VAP in Colombia. If the cost for intravenous powder for injection of Ceftolozane/tazobactam is reduced by 32%, this alternative could be cost effective respect to meropenem.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.