Search

It is imperative to maintain normal blood flow to provide adequate oxygen supply to specific organs and cells, as well as for the removal of metabolic byproducts. Therefore, any situation that results in blood clotting can injure or kill living tissues. In this paper, we describe a case where a protein C deficient subject who would, by all medical indicators, be at 100 % risk of experiencing thrombophlebitis, deep vein thrombosis, and or lung emboli, is able to escape all pathologies by using perioperative zymogen protein C (ZPC). This protein C deficient patient has a long history of blood clotting, particularly from surgical procedures. The patient is 81 years old and first experienced clotting due to hernia surgery in 1964, when he was hospitalized for 16 days post-surgery with life threatening complications. It was later determined in 1980, after many episodes, that the patient had hereditary protein C deficiency at the 38 % level. In his hernia surgery, perioperative ZPC was used along with accepted anticoagulation procedures with no blood clots or other related side effects occurring. This procedure can greatly benefit protein C deficient patients, and could potentially find use for non-PC deficient patients in surgeries and a variety of other medical treatments. This particular case helps to validate the importance of ZPC in effecting safer surgery in high-risk patients. It also supports the mechanism of ZPC acting as an anticoagulant without causing bleeding. Most importantly, each clinical case study represents a unique combination of surgeon, hematologist, medical staff, and patient functioning as a coordinated team. In this case, smaller amounts of very expensive ZPC achieved safe and efficacious results, which is hugely important for future clinical applications when considering the production cost of ZPC. More studies must be done to establish minimum dosing while achieving safe and efficacious outcomes.

Objectives: To describe stakeholder involvement in the priority setting and appeals processes across five drug reimbursement recommendation committees., Methods: We conducted qualitative case studies of how five independent drug advisory committees from Canada, Israel, England and Wales, Australia, and the USA made funding decisions for six expensive drugs. Interviews with 48 informants were conducted with committee members, patient groups, and industry representatives., Results: Different stakeholders were allowed, in varying degrees, to participate in the formal mechanisms for revisions and appeals of decisions. Participants identified a number of stakeholder groups who were already involved in the process, as well as stakeholders whom they believed should be included in the decision-making process., Conclusions: A central component of a legitimate and fair priority setting process is to make priority setting explicit and to involve both pertinent values and stakeholders in decision-making. Study participants believed that the involvement of multiple stakeholder groups within the deliberative and appeals/revisions processes would contribute to a fair and legitimate drug reimbursement process., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Following the failure of PROWESS-SHOCK to demonstrate efficacy, Eli Lilly and Company withdrew drotrecogin alfa (activated) from the worldwide market. Drotrecogin was initially approved after the original trial, PROWESS, was stopped early for overwhelming efficacy. These events prompt consideration of both the initial approval decision and the later decision to withdraw. It is regrettable that the initial decision was made largely on a single trial that was stopped early. However, the decision to approve was within the bounds of normal regulatory practice and was made by many approval bodies around the world. Furthermore, the overall withdrawal rate of approved drugs remains very low. The decision to withdraw was a voluntary decision by Eli Lilly and Company and likely reflected key business considerations. Drotrecogin does have important biologic effects, and it is probable that we do not know how best to select patients who would benefit. Overall, there may still be a small advantage to drotrecogin alfa, even used non-selectively, but the costs of determining such an effect with adequate certainty are likely prohibitive, and the point is now moot. In the future, we should consider ways to make clinical trials easier and quicker so that more information can be available in a timely manner when considering regulatory approval. At the same time, more sophisticated selection of patients seems key if we are to most wisely test agents designed to manipulate the septic host response.

Introduction: Previous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) reported that Drotrecogin alfa (DrotAA) is cost-effective based on a Phase III clinical trial (PROWESS). There is little evidence on whether DrotAA is cost-effective in routine clinical practice. We assessed whether DrotAA is cost-effective in routine practice for adult patients with severe sepsis and multiple organ systems failing., Methods: This CEA used data from a prospective cohort study that compared DrotAA versus no DrotAA (control) for severe sepsis patients with multiple organ systems failing admitted to critical care units in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The cohort study used case-mix and mortality data from a national audit, linked with a separate audit of DrotAA infusions. Re-admissions to critical care and corresponding mortality were recorded for four years. Patients receiving DrotAA (n = 1,076) were matched to controls (n = 1,650) with a propensity score (Pscore), and Genetic Matching (GenMatch). The CEA projected long-term survival to report lifetime incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) overall, and for subgroups with two or three to five organ systems failing at baseline., Results: The incremental costs per QALY for DrotAA were £30,000 overall, and £16,000 for the subgroups with three to five organ systems failing. For patients with two organ systems failing, DrotAA resulted in an average loss of one QALY at an incremental cost of £15,000. When the subgroup with two organ systems was restricted to patients receiving DrotAA within 24 hours, DrotAA led to a gain of 1.2 QALYs at a cost per QALY of £11,000. The results were robust to other assumptions including the approach taken to projecting long-term outcomes., Conclusions: DrotAA is cost-effective in routine practice for severe sepsis patients with three to five organ systems failing. For patients with two organ systems failing, this study could not provide unequivocal evidence on the cost-effectiveness of DrotAA.

Introduction: We have shown that low protein C levels predict poor survival up to five years in a general intensive care unit patient material and hypothesize that treatment with protein C is beneficial. The objectives were to calculate costs of protein C treatment, at best-case scenario, per statistical life saved., Materials and Methods: Ninety-two patients with deranged global haemostatic tests admitted to the mixed surgical medical intensive care unit, Malmö University Hospital. We hypothesized that increasing protein C levels in patients with low levels would enhance survival to the same rate as a cohort with higher protein C. Number of statistical lives saved were estimated using survival analysis. Costs per life saved at 30days were calculated., Results: Total costs per life saved in 2007 prices (upper limit of 95% CI) were calculated at euro 50,200 (recombinant activated protein C, drotrecogin alfa (activated), Xigris) and euro 46,000 (zymogen protein C, Ceprotin), which may be compared to the value of a statistical life (euro 937,000)., Conclusions: Our theoretical model of converting a low protein C group to a higher protein C group by treating with activated protein C or the protein zymogen showed no major difference between the treatments in terms of costs, and that costs are lower than the value of a statistical life. Although our study has several caveats the results support the PROWESS study, in that patients with a very severe disease, having low protein C levels, may benefit from protein C treatment in a cost effective way., (Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the health and cost outcomes of pharmacist intervention versus non-intervention in activated protein C (drotrecogin alpha) therapy for patients with severe sepsis., Method: This is a retrospective study. We reviewed the medical records of patients aged 18 years and older who were admitted to our hospital for severe sepsis from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007. Only patients who are prescribed activated protein C for the treatment of severe sepsis according to the reimbursement criteria can be reimbursed by the Taiwan Bureau of National Health Insurance (BNHI). Our hospital stipulated that the criteria check list must be evaluated by a clinical pharmacist and the prescribing physician as to whether the patient is eligible to receive activated protein C. To assess the influence of pharmacist intervention on outcomes, we divided eligible patients into two groups, pharmacist-intervention group (Group A; n = 19) and non-pharmacist intervention group (Group B; n = 19). Both groups received a 96-h intravenous infusion of activated protein C at 24 microg/kg/h. We defined evident severe sepsis as concurrent antibiotic plus ventilator and/or vasopressor use. We compared group characteristics, 28-day in-hospital mortality, length of stay and direct medical costs between the two groups. One-way ANOVA was used for analysis., Results: 50% of patients in each group met the reimbursement criteria of the BNHI. Activated protein C therapy was initiated within 1.37 +/- 0.4 days and 7.21 +/- 7.8 days of admission to the ICU in Group A and Group B, respectively (p < 0.01). All of the patients in Group A (19/19) and 42.1% of the patients in Group B (8/19) received activated protein C within 12 - 48 h of admission to the Intensive care unit (ICU) (p < 0.01). 28-day mortality was lower for Group A than for Group B (26.7% and 43.8%, respectively). The length of stay in the ICU for patients in Group A was shorter than that in Group B (14.1 +/- 7.7 vs. 19.7 +/- 11.1, respectively; p < 0.079). Total direct medical costs for survivors in Group A were less than those in Group B (US$ 20,632.3 vs. US$ 24,785.8, respectively; p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Pharmacist intervention in prescribing activated protein C for patients with severe sepsis might reduce direct medical costs and promote earlier initiation of therapy. The potential impact of pharmacist intervention on the timing of activated protein C therapy and the direct medical costs of treatment warrant further study.

Objectives: To estimate the impact of drotrecogin alfa (DA) on intensive care workload in an observational study while illustrating the use of propensity score (PS) matching to control for recruitment bias., Methods: PREMISS is a prospective, multicenter pre-post study. Its goal was to evaluate DA in the treatment of severe sepsis with multiple organ failure. Inclusions took place before (control patients) and after (DA-treated patients) the drug's market authorization. Workload was measured in euros using the French classification of medical procedures. It was compared between the groups via random effects gamma regression using two techniques: 1) regression adjusting for the patients' initial characteristics on the whole population; and 2) PS matching. A structural equation model was used to explore the pathways leading to a workload increase., Results: Drotrecogin alfa is estimated to increase intensive care unit (ICU) workload by 20% (P = 0.045) according to the multivariate model and 34% (P = 0.002) according to the PS-matched one. In the structural equation model fitted, only DA's direct effect on the occurrence of bleeding events reaches significance (P = 0.024)., Conclusions: We found a significant effect of DA on ICU workload with both standard methods of adjustment and PS matching. This effect appears to be mainly due to DA's effect on bleeding events. The analysis illustrated the usefulness of PS methods in the analysis of observational data, as it leads to conclusions similar to the traditional multivariate regression approaches while avoiding making too many adjustments, allowing focusing on the treatment effect.

Understanding pharmacoeconomic evaluation can empower clinicians to be stronger decision makers. However, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in critical care are sometimes not easy to understand and often not placed in context with other interventions. The purpose of this article is to clarify and simplify the CEA process using examples from critical care and severe sepsis. First discussed is cost-effectiveness as a framework for clinical decision making and how it compares to other types of economic evaluations. Then important considerations when conducting or reviewing CEAs are explored, such as perspective, discounting, sensitivity analysis, and grading of CEAs, as well as shortcomings and resistance to using CEAs. Next, applications of CEA in critical care and severe sepsis are reviewed. Included is the Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for severe sepsis, drotrecogin alfa (activated), as an example of a recently new critical care intervention that resulted in significant interest in understanding cost-effectiveness. Finally, CEAs of other medical and nonmedical interventions are placed in context with CEAs from critical care. Understanding pharmacoeconomic evaluation can empower clinicians to be stronger decision makers. CEAs provide decision makers a quantitative measure of the value of therapeutic options that can guide clinicians toward balancing the cost burdens of therapy with their profound effects and choosing between options that compete for funding.

Background: Recombinant human activated protein C (rhAPC) has been reported to be cost-effective in severely ill septic patients in studies using data from a pivotal randomized trial. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of rhAPC in patients with severe sepsis and multiple organ failure in real-life intensive care practice., Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study involving adult patients recruited before and after licensure of rhAPC in France. Inclusion criteria were applied according to the label approved in Europe. The expected recruitment bias was controlled by building a sample of patients matched for propensity score. Complete hospitalization costs were quantified using a regression equation involving intensive care units variables. rhAPC acquisition costs were added, assuming that all costs associated with rhAPC were already included in the equation. Cost comparisons were conducted using the nonparametric bootstrap method. Cost-effectiveness quadrants and acceptability curves were used to assess uncertainty of the cost-effectiveness ratio., Results: In the initial cohort (n = 1096), post-license patients were younger, had less co-morbid conditions and had failure of more organs than did pre-license patients (for all: P < 0.0001). In the matched sample (n = 840) the mean age was 62.4 +/- 14.9 years, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II was 56.7 +/- 18.5, and the number of organ failures was 3.20 +/- 0.83. When rhAPC was used, 28-day mortality tended to be reduced (34.1% post-license versus 37.4% pre-license, P = 0.34), bleeding events were more frequent (21.7% versus 13.6%, P = 0.002) and hospital costs were higher (47,870 euros versus 36,717 euros, P < 0.05). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios gained were as follows: 20,278 euros per life-year gained and 33,797 euros per quality-adjusted life-year gained. There was a 74.5% probability that rhAPC would be cost-effective if there were willingness to pay 50,000 euros per life-year gained. The probability was 64.3% if there were willingness to pay 50,000 euros per quality-adjusted life-year gained., Conclusion: This study, conducted in matched patient populations, demonstrated that in real-life clinical practice the probability that rhAPC will be cost-effective if one is willing to pay 50,000 euros per life-year gained is 74.5%.

In November 2001, drotrecogin alfa (activated) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration; in August 2002 it was approved by the European Medicines Agency. Since the approval of drotrecogin alfa (activated), however, critical care physicians have been faced with several challenges, namely its costs, selection of patients who are more likely to benefit from it, and the decision regarding when to start drotrecogin alfa (activated) treatment. There are also operational issues such as how to manage the infusion to deliver an effective treatment while minimizing the risk for bleeding, particularly in patients with deranged clotting, at around the time of surgery or during renal replacement therapy. While addressing these issues, this review remains practical but evidence based as much as possible.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) compared with best supportive care in a UK cohort of adult intensive-care patients with severe sepsis., Methods: A systematic review of evidence on the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) was undertaken, and a decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment in the United Kingdom. Trial data from the Recombinant Human Activated Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) study have been synthesized with other data, including UK data on severe sepsis, to estimate the costs and consequences of treatment over time., Results: For patients with severe sepsis and multiple organ dysfunction, the estimates of cost per life year and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) are pounds 4931 and pounds 8228, respectively. For patients with severe sepsis alone, the cost per life-year and cost per QALY are pouhds 5495 and pounds 9161, respectively., Conclusions: Whereas the therapeutic cost for drotrecogin alfa (activated) appears high (at around pounds 5000 per patient) and the potential impact on the provider budget is considerable, drotrecogin alfa (activated) is clinically effective, represents a cost-effective use of resources, and is a significant advance in the treatment of severe sepsis in patients requiring intensive care.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate the expected cost and clinical benefits associated with the use of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (Xigris; Eli Lilly and Company; Indianapolis, IN) in the French hospital setting., Methods: The recombinant human activated PROtein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) study results (1271 patients with multiple organ failure) were adjusted to 9,948 hospital stays from a database of Parisian area intensive-care units (ICUs)-the CubRea (Intensive Care Database User Group) database. The analysis features a decision tree with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis., Results: The cost per life year gained (LYG) of drotrecogin treatment for severe sepsis with multiple organ failure (European indication) was estimated to be dollars 11,812. At the hospital level, the drug is expected to induce an additional cost of dollars 7545 per treated patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranges from dollars 7873 per LYG for patients receiving three organ supports during ICU stay to dollars 17,704 per LYG for patients receiving less than two organ supports., Conclusions: Drotrecogin alfa (activated) is cost-effective in the treatment of severe sepsis with multiple organ failure when added to best standard care. The cost-effectiveness of the drug increases with baseline disease severity, but it remains cost-effective for all patients when used in compliance with the European approved indication.

Severe sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the critically ill patient. Management involves identification and treatment of the underlying causative infection, with antimicrobial agents and surgery where necessary, haemodynamic resuscitation with fluids and vasoactive agents, steroids (for septic shock) and immunomodulation with drotrecogin-alpha (activated), where not contraindicated. Every effort must be made to identify sepsis early so as to optimise the patient's chances of a good outcome.

We aimed to estimate the potential number of patients eligible for treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated) when applying different international criteria. The study was a post-hoc analysis of inception cohort study of 691 patients with severe sepsis during 5878 consecutive intensive care unit admission episodes in 23 closed multi-disciplinary ICUs of 21 hospitals (16 tertiary and 5 university-affiliated) in Australia and New Zealand. Outcomes assessed were presence of contraindications to treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated), an admission APACHE II score of 25 or greater and dysfunction of two or more organs. During 5878 consecutive intensive care admission episodes, 691 patients had severe sepsis, 553 (80.0%, 95% CI 77.0-83.0%) had no relative or absolute contraindication, 64 (9.3%, 7.1-11.4%) had a relative contraindication and 74 (10.7%, 8.4-13.0%) had an absolute contraindication. Two hundred and six patients (3.5%, 3.0-4.0%) had an APACHE II score of 25 or greater, 452 (7.7%, 7.0-8.4%) had dysfunction of two or more organs, 469 (8.0%, 7.3-8.7%) had either dysfunction of two or more organs or an APACHE II score of 25 or greater Relatively few patients had an absolute contraindication to treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated). Selection based on the APACHE II score results in fewer eligible patients than selection based on multiple organ dysfunction. Depending on the selection criteria used, for every hundred admissions to intensive care, between 3.5 and 8.0 of patients may be eligible for treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated).

Sepsis, the systemic inflammatory response to infection, is common among severely ill patients and can be life-threatening. Over a quarter of patients in UK intensive care units (ICUs) have severe sepsis in the first 24 hours after admission. Of these, 35% die before leaving the ICU and 47% before leaving hospital despite standard therapy. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) (Xigris - Eli Lilly), a recombinant human activated protein C, is licensed for treating adults who have severe sepsis with multiple organ failure. Here we assess its efficacy and safety.

During a 1-year period, the authors examined clinical experience with drotrecogin alfa, activated for sepsis in a 24-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit. Drotrecogin alfa, activated was administered 46 times to 44 patients (3% of all intensive care unit admissions). Eighty-six percent of patients were on vasopressors; 95% were mechanically ventilated. Mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 22.0 at admission and 21.9 during the 24 hours before drug administration. The 28-day all-cause mortality was 36.4% and hospital mortality was 43.2%, trending higher (P = .10) than in the PROWESS study, which can be attributed to clinical use in patients who would not have met PROWESS study inclusion criteria. Failure to complete a 96-hour infusion of drotrecogin alfa, activated and transfer from another hospital or nursing home before treatment were associated with poor outcome. Total cost of hospital care, including mean drotrecogin alfa, activated drug cost of 7,312 US dollars, exceeded reimbursement by a mean of 18,227 US dollars.

Three methodological approaches were applied to analyze whether the cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (Xigris) as an adjunct to standard care compared with standard care alone is a cost-effective alternative for the treatment of Swedish patients with severe sepsis and organ dysfunction. Health-economic model simulations were applied to (1) Swedish treatment pattern data, (2) international trial data and local unit prices, and (3) Swedish local patient data combined with trial age structure to adjust for differences in the age structure between the trial and the Swedish patient sample. The methodological approach had no effect on the overall conclusion that the intervention was cost-effective in the treatment of Swedish patients with severe sepsis and organ dysfunction. However, the cost-effectiveness ratios were sensitive to the approach applied. The results indicate the importance of collecting not only information on local prices but also information about treatment pattern and patient characteristics when conducting country-specific health-economic model applications.

The management of intensive care patients have changed dramatically in the last years: from merely supportive care, it has moved to evidence-based strategies that have been demonstrated to reduce mortality of the severely ill patients. Clinical research have brought numerous positive clinical trials offering intensive care physicians specific therapies to improve outcome of intensive care patients. Among them were the trials that tested the infusion of activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis, tight glycemic control in surgical intensive care patients, and use of lung protective mechanical ventilation by using small tidal volumes in patients with acute lung injury. Although results of these trials were sufficiently strong to, at least, consider implementation of these strategies in critical care medicine, published and yet unpublished reports show that there is significant struggle with implementation of these therapies. This manuscript focuses on the potential reasons that underlie this problem.

Objectives: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) for the treatment of adults with severe sepsis in a UK context., Data Sources: Electronic databases. Data from the commercial use of the drug up to April 2002. Data from the manufacturer submission to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE)., Review Methods: A systematic review of the literature and an economic evaluation were undertaken. Data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results from included studies., Results: The evidence on the effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) for the treatment of severe sepsis came primarily from one large pivotal randomised controlled trial, the PROWESS study. This study demonstrated a statistically significant absolute reduction in 28-day mortality of 6.5%. Longer term survival benefit was maintained to 90 days. By 9 months, the trend towards increased median survival was non-significant, although the survival curves did not cross. Results presented by the number of organ dysfunctions were not statistically significant, but when mortality rates for those with two or more organ failures were combined, the relative risk of death was significantly lower in those treated with drotrecogin alfa (activated) compared with placebo. However, this report highlights a number of considerations relevant to the subgroup analyses reported for the PROWESS study. Published cost-effectiveness studies of treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated) have applied a range of methods to the estimation of benefits, estimating an incremental gain per treated patient of between 0.38 and 0.68 life-years (for patients with severe sepsis). For patients with severe sepsis and multiple organ dysfunction, the manufacturer (Eli Lilly) estimated an incremental gain of 1.115 life-years per treated patient, compared to 1.351 life-years per treated patient estimated by the Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC). These latter UK analyses are based on a patient group that is more severely affected by disease, where effectiveness is greater and the baseline risk of all-cause mortality is much higher (SHTAC analysis), these factors are associated with the noted difference in effect. The three published cost-effectiveness studies report cost for US and Canadian patient groups; for those patients with severe sepsis they report the additional cost per patient treated in a range around 10,000-16,000 dollars. The manufacturer's submission reports analysis for the UK, based on 28-day survival data in patients with severe sepsis and multiple organ dysfunction (the European licence indication), with the additional mean cost per treated patient estimated to be 5106 pounds. The analysis undertaken by SHTAC, for a UK group of patients with severe sepsis and multiple organ dysfunction, estimates an additional mean cost per patient treated of 6661 pounds. The manufacturer's submission to NICE presents cost-effectiveness estimates for drotrecogin alfa (activated) in the UK, in patients with severe sepsis and multiple organ dysfunction, at 6637 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) based on 28-day effectiveness data, and 10,937 pounds per QALY based on longer term follow-up data. SHTAC developed an independent cost-effectiveness model and estimated a base-case cost per QALY of 8228 pounds in patients with severe sepsis and multiple organ failure (based on 28-day survival data). Simulation results indicate that where the NHS is willing to pay 20,000 pounds per QALY, drotrecogin alfa (activated) is a cost-effective use of resources in 98.7% of cases. Published economic evaluations report various sensitivity analyses, with results sensitive to changes in the measure of treatment effect, but otherwise studies reported that results were robust to variations in most assumptions used in the cost-effectiveness analysis., Conclusions: Drotrecogin alfa (activated) plus best supportive care appears clinically and cost-effective compared with best supportive care alone, in a UK cohort of severe sepsis patients, and in the subgroup of more severely affected patients with severe sepsis and multiple organ failure. The introduction of drotrecogin alfa (activated) will involve a substantial additional cost to the NHS. The treatment-eligible population in England and Wales may comprise up to 16,570 patients, with an estimated annual drug acquisition cost of over 80 million pounds, excluding VAT. Further research is required on the longer term impact of drotrecogin alfa (activated) on both mortality and morbidity in UK patients with severe sepsis, on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in children (under 18 years) with severe sepsis, and on the effect of the timing of dosage and duration of treatment on outcomes in severe sepsis.

Drotrecogin alfa (activated) is licensed in Europe for the treatment of severe sepsis in patients with multiple organ failure. We constructed a model to assess the cost effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) from the perspective of the UK National Health Service when used in adult intensive care units. Patient outcomes from a 28-day international clinical trial (PROWESS) and a subsequent follow-up study (EVBI) were supplemented with UK data. Cost effectiveness was assessed as incremental cost per life year and per quality adjusted life year saved compared to placebo alongside best usual care. Applying the 28-day mortality outcomes of the PROWESS study, the model produced a cost per life year saved of 4608 UK pounds and cost per quality adjusted life year saved of 6679 UK pounds. Equivalent results using actual hospital outcomes were 7625 UK pounds per life year and 11,051 UK pounds per quality adjusted life year. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) appears cost effective in treating severe sepsis in UK intensive care units.

Background: The use of new, high-priced therapies in intensive care medicine should be assessed by a questionnaire., Methods: Questionnaires were sent to 849 intensive care units in Germany. The use of three new strategies were asked: treatment of methicilline resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) patients (using linezolid), of severe bleeding (using rFVIIa), and of severe sepsis (using activated protein C [aPC])., Results: Approximately 39 % of the questionnaires were answered and analyzed. All three new strategies were only rarely or very rarely used in Germany even in universities and hospitals with more than 1000 beds. This appears to be very astonishing because all substances were subject to extensive marketing campaigns, received scientific prices (linezolid) or were strongly recommended by some scientific societies (aPC). One major concern to the use of the new approaches was based on the high pricing. Prices were assessed as excessive or very excessive. In spite of a mass of information about the substances, a lot of the intensivists reviewed the scientific basis as weak and not justifying the use of the costly substances., Conclusions: Modern, costly pharmaceutical approaches in intensive care medicine are widely not accepted in Germany. Especially a tight financial corset hinders most intensivists to use these strategies that may be life-saving in some patients. A solution to this problem is urgently required that can be reached only in intensive exchange with all who are responsible for this dilemma.

Human protein C is a serine protease that circulates in the blood as an inactive zymogen. It is converted to its active form by interaction with thrombomodulin on the endothelial wall. Activated protein C has a significant role in maintaining haemostasis, and is a major mechanism of controlling microvascular thrombosis. Recent reports describe the use of drotrecogin alfa (recombinant activated protein C) in severe sepsis, a condition relevant to emergency medicine. This review describes the physiology of the protein C pathway and its importance in sepsis. It will also focus on the use of drotrecogin alfa in sepsis, and its use in the ED.

Purpose of Review: Dysregulation of endogenous coagulant and anticoagulant systems is now believed to play an important role in the pathogenesis of sepsis and septic shock. Reductions in host activated protein C levels and resultant microvascular thrombosis provided a basis for the use of recombinant human activated protein C in sepsis. Although controversial, the findings from an initial phase III trial testing this agent resulted in its approval for use in patients with severe sepsis and high risk of death. This review highlights emerging insights into the biology of protein C and activated protein C in sepsis, summarizes additional analysis growing out of the phase III trial testing recombinant human activated protein C, and assesses the cost-effectiveness that the clinical use of the agent has had thus far., Recent Findings: Binding of activated protein C to the endothelial cell protein C receptor is recognized to result in a growing number of actions including increased activity of activated protein C itself and inhibition of both nuclear factor-kappaB, a central regulator in the host inflammatory response, and apoptosis. Additional analysis of the original phase III trial testing recombinant human activated protein C appears to emphasize one of the US Food and Drug Administration's original concerns regarding an association between severity of sepsis and this agent's effects. Postmarketing analysis and growing experience with other anticoagulant agents and corticosteroids in sepsis raise questions regarding the ultimate cost-effectiveness of activated protein C., Summary: The protein C pathway is important both to coagulant and inflammatory pathways during sepsis. Based on emerging investigations, its actions appear to be increasingly complex ones. Despite potentially promising results in an initial phase III trial, the role of recombinant human activated protein C in the treatment of septic patients must continue to be evaluated.

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., (Copyright 2004 Adis Data Information BV)

Introduction: The PROWESS clinical trial has shown that treatment with drotrecogin alpha (activated) in patients with severe sepsis is associated with a reduction in the absolute risk of death compared with standard treatment. The aim of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alpha (activated) versus that of standard care in the treatment of severe sepsis in Spain., Patients and Methods: A decision analysis model was drawn up to compare costs to hospital discharge and the long-term efficacy of drotrecogin alpha (activated) versus those of standard care in the treatment of severe sepsis in Spain from the perspective of the health care payer. Most of the information for creating the model was obtained from the PROWESS clinical trial. A two-fold baseline analysis was performed: a) for all patients included in the PROWESS clinical trial and b) for the patients with two or more organ failures. The major variables for clinical assessment were the reduction in mortality and years of life gained (YLG). Cost-effectiveness was expressed as cost per YLG. A sensitivity analysis was applied using 3% and 5% discount rates for YLG and by modifying the patterns of health care, intensive care unit costs, and life expectancy by initial co-morbidity and therapeutic efficacy of drotrecogin alpha (activated)., Results: Treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated) was associated with a 6.0% drop in the absolute risk of death (p = 0.005) when all of the patients from the PROWESS trial were included and with a 7.3% reduction (p = 0.005) when the analysis was restricted to patients with two or more organ failures. The cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) was 13,550 euros per YLG with respect to standard care after analysing all of the patients and 9,800 euros per YLG in the group of patients with two or more organ failures. In the sensitivity analysis, the results ranged from 7,322 to 16,493 euros per YLG. The factors with the greatest impact on the results were the change in the efficacy of drotrecogin alfa (activated), adjustment of survival by initial co-morbidity and the application of discount rates to YLG., Conclusions: Treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated) presents a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio compared with other health care interventions commonly used in Spain.

Drotrecogin alfa (activated) (Xigris; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) significantly reduced mortality in severe sepsis in the PROWESS trial. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) as an adjunct to standard therapy from the German healthcare payer's perspective with respect to patients with 1) severe sepsis and 2) severe sepsis and multiple organ failure the approved European indication. Hospital resource use based on PROWESS was valued using German unit costs. German life-tables and long-term survival assumptions determined life-years gained. European and German healthcare resource use data are examined in the sensitivity analysis. We assumed a unit price of euro;237.50 for drotrecogin alfa (activated). Per patient treated, drotrecogin alfa (activated) increased costs by euro;7,500, and hospital costs by euro;900 for all patients (euro;7,400 and euro;1,500 respectively for the approved indication) and survival by 0.59 life years (0.87 life years respectively for the approved indication). Thus drotrecogin alfa (activated) cost euro;14,100 (euro;17,700 discounting life years at 3%) per life year gained for all patients (euro;10,200 and euro;12,900, respectively, for the approved indication). Testing the unit cost of drotrecogin alfa (activated), pattern of resource use, and survival benefit, demonstrated that cost-effectiveness lies well within the range of other life saving interventions in Germany representing good economic value.

The clinical spectrum of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock is responsible for a growing number of deaths and excessive health care expenditures. Until recently, despite multiple clinical trials, no intervention provided a beneficial outcome in septic patients. Within the last 2 years, studies that involved drotrecogin alfa (activated), corticosteroid therapy, and early goal-directed therapy showed efficacy in those with severe sepsis and septic shock. These results have provided optimism for reducing sepsis-related mortality.

Severe sepsis syndrome has important consequences to healthcare systems as the incidence is increasing, there is significant attributed morbidity and mortality and there is a substantial cost for in-hospital and post-discharge care. Current treatment includes the use of antimicrobials, local source control and aggressive physiological support, usually in an intensive care unit setting. Drotrecogin-alpha (activated) or recombinant human activated protein C (rhAPC) is the only biological agent approved for use in severe sepsis syndrome that has demonstrated efficacy in reducing 28-day all-cause mortality and new data suggests a trend towards longer term survival. However, given the evidence of a variable effect on survival rates in patient subgroups and its acquisition cost, controversy has arisen concerning its appropriate use. This review discusses the epidemiology of sepsis, preclinical and clinical evidence supporting the use of rhAPC use, controversies about the evidence of efficacy in severe sepsis syndrome and cost-effectiveness data.

For the first time in medical history, a drug has been shown to reduce the mortality associated with sepsis, the leading cause of death in many ICUs. Optimal use by appropriate selection of patients and early recognition of sepsis could save thousands of lives. Nurses play a major role in recognizing severe sepsis. By using the concepts introduced here, nurses can play a direct role in saving the lives of patients with sepsis.

Aim: Sepsis is a serious and increasing worldwide intensive care problem. In response to intensivists' concerns over the benefits, risks and financial implications of the use of drotrecogin alfa (recombinant human activated protein C), the first adjunctive therapy for sepsis licensed in New Zealand, the New Zealand Region of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) requested an advisory statement from a working party of New Zealand intensivists., Methods: We reviewed (a) the PROWESS study of drotrecogin alfa recombinant; (b) the submission made by the sponsoring company to the FDA; (c) recent discussions and an economic evaluation of the use of the agent; (d) Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme positive recommendations; (e) guidelines produced by the Eli Lilly Australian Advisory Board; (f) Australian hospital decisions on availability; and (g) New Zealand pricing and payment arrangements. We then formulated suggested New Zealand guidelines., Results: We recommend that hospital pharmacy and therapeutics committees review the agent now. If the agent is made available for use, we recommend that: (a) specialists prescribing the agent be required to contribute clinical data to a national register of patients, (b) patients considered for treatment should first be treated with all appropriate surgical and medical therapy for severe sepsis with high illness severity in an intensive care unit by an intensivist; (c) patients considered for treatment should not have severe comorbidity or predetermined treatment limitations or contraindications to the agent in the original phase III study; and (d) patients should be considered only if seen to be not clearly improving after a six-hour period of intensive treatment. Once a decision has been made to treat with drotrecogin alfa, treatment should commence as soon as possible and within 24 hours of meeting criteria. Although the agent is recommended for use in adults, it may be reasonable to treat some older children., Conclusions: Despite high cost and moderate benefit, it may be reasonable to treat highly selected New Zealand patients with drotrecogin alfa.

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of recombinant human activated protein C (rhAPC) compared with usual therapy for patients with severe sepsis, and also to determine the influence that severity of illness exerts on cost-effectiveness., Materials and Methods: We use a Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment strategies for patients with severe sepsis. Therapy includes treatment with either rhAPC and usual therapy, or usual therapy alone. Probabilities for clinical outcomes were obtained from a large randomized clinical trial comparing the use of rhAPC with placebo (PROWESS study) and from outcomes literature for patients with severe sepsis and its complications. Cost estimates were based on Medicare reimbursement rates, Health Care Financing Administration information and the literature. Outcome measures include life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness., Results: Compared with usual therapy alone, rhAPC treatment for patients with very severe sepsis (APACHE II score > or = 25) was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $13 493/QALY. Treatment of patients with less severe sepsis with rhAPC (APACHE II score < 25) had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $403,000/QALY. For patients with very severe sepsis the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for treatment with rhAPC remained under $30,000/QALY, over a broad range of variables, including costs of rhAPC, costs of acute care and costs and probabilities of complications of treatment. For patients with less severe sepsis, drug costs would need to fall well below current market price before achieving cost-effectiveness. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis comparing rhAPC treatment with usual therapy for patients with very severe sepsis showed that < 1% of Monte Carlo simulations had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios > $50,000/QALY., Conclusions: The use of rhAPC for the treatment of patients with very severe sepsis, as determined by APACHE II score > or = 25, appears cost-effective, while treatment of patients with APACHE II score < 25 is not cost-effective.