Cost-effectiveness analysis of six strategies for cardiovascular surgery prophylaxis in patients labeled penicillin allergic

• Published in: American journal of health-system pharmacy Vol. 57; no. 4; p. 339
• Main Authors: Phillips, E, Louie, M, Knowles, S R, Simor, A E, Oh, P I
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 15.02.2000
• Subjects: Anti-Bacterial Agents - economics; Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use; Antibiotic Prophylaxis - economics; Antibiotic Prophylaxis - methods; Cardiovascular Surgical Procedures; Cefazolin - economics; Cefazolin - therapeutic use; Cephalosporins - economics; Cephalosporins - therapeutic use; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Decision Trees; Drug Hypersensitivity - etiology; Humans; Immunoglobulin E - immunology; Penicillins - adverse effects; Skin Tests; Vancomycin - economics; Vancomycin - therapeutic use; Vancomycin Resistance
• ISSN: 1079-2082
• DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/57.4.339

The cost-effectiveness of different approaches to antimicrobial prophylaxis for cardiovascular surgery patients labeled penicillin allergic was studied. A decision-analytic model was used to examine the cost-effectiveness of six strategies for antimicrobial prophylaxis in cardiovascular surgery patients at a tertiary care hospital. The strategies consisted of (1) giving vancomycin to all patients labeled penicillin allergic, (2) giving cefazolin to all patients labeled penicillin allergic, (3) giving vancomycin to all patients with a history suggesting an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated reaction to penicillin and cefazolin to patients without such a history, (4) administering a penicillin skin test to patients with a history suggesting an IgE-mediated reaction to penicillin and giving vancomycin to patients with positive results and cefazolin to all others, (5) skin testing all patients labeled penicillin allergic and giving vancomycin to those with positive results and cefazolin to those with negative results, regardless of history, and (6) skin testing all patients and giving vancomycin to those with positive results or a history suggesting an IgE-mediated reaction to penicillin and cefazolin to all others. Giving cefazolin to all patients labeled penicillin allergic was the least expensive strategy but was associated with the highest rate of both anaphylactic and non-life-threatening serious reactions. Selective use of vancomycin in patients with a history suggesting an IgE-mediated reaction to penicillin was associated with an added cost and a slightly lower rate of anaphylaxis. Although skin-testing strategies may decrease both non-life-threatening and anaphylactic reactions, the incremental cost was high. When vancomycin was given to all patients labeled penicillin allergic, the incremental cost was very high. A decision-analytic model indicated that selective use of vancomycin is more cost-effective than indiscriminate use of vancomycin for surgical prophylaxis in cardiovascular surgery patients labeled penicillin allergic.