» Articles » PMID: 22346462

Containing Cefoxitin Costs Through a Program to Curtail Use in Surgical Prophylaxis

Overview
Date 2012 Feb 21
PMID 22346462
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To reduce drug costs attributable to anti-anaerobic cephalosporins - specifically to reduce cefoxitin use in surgical prophylaxis.

Design: Before and after intervention cefoxitin use comparison.

Setting: Tertiary care hospital.

Participants: Hospitalized patients.

Interventions: Chart review of patients identified through pharmacy records as cefoxitin recipients was carried out to determine which physicians were the principal users of cefoxitin and the purpose for such use. These data were used to direct cost containment strategies.

Main Outcome Measures: Hospital quarterly pharmacy acquisition costs and grams of cefoxitin used.

Results: The departments of surgery (49%) and obstetrics/gynecology (37%) were the principal users of cefoxitin, and surgical prophylaxis was found to be the principal indication for use (63%). These departments were invited by the Antibiotic Utilization Subcommittee of the hospital's Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee to draft surgical prophylaxis guidelines in keeping with published recommendations. Such guidelines were written and distributed to medical staff and substituted cefazolin for most forms of prophylaxis, gentamicin/metronidazole for colorectal prophylaxis and cefoxitin only for appendectomies. Over the following 21 months, hospital-wide cefoxitin use fell from 6093 g, $70,076 per quarter, to 1316 g, $11,515 per quarter (partially offset by a 2595 g, $9,131 per quarter increase in cefazolin use).

Conclusion: As a first step in reducing hospital costs of anti-anaerobic cephalosporins, rationalization of cefoxitin use may be preferable to formulary interchange with alternatives such as ceftizoxime or cefotetan.

Citing Articles

Evaluating the Training, Responsibilities, and Practices of P&T Committee Members and Nonmember Contributors.

Rodriguez R, Kelly B, Moody M J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017; 23(8):868-874.

PMID: 28737984 PMC: 10398261. DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.8.868.


Analysis of the Structure and Function of FOX-4 Cephamycinase.

Lefurgy S, Malashkevich V, Aguilan J, Nieves E, Mundorff E, Biju B Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015; 60(2):717-28.

PMID: 26525784 PMC: 4750714. DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01887-15.


Non-observance of guidelines for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis and surgical-site infections.

Lallemand S, Thouverez M, Bailly P, Bertrand X, Talon D Pharm World Sci. 2002; 24(3):95-9.

PMID: 12136746 DOI: 10.1023/a:1016122202439.


The expanding role of pharmacy and therapeutics committees. The 1990s and beyond.

WADE W, Spruill W, TAYLOR A, Longe R, Hawkins D Pharmacoeconomics. 1996; 10(2):123-8.

PMID: 10163415 DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199610020-00004.

References
1.
. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 1987; 29(750):91-4. View

2.
McDonald P, Karran S . A comparison of intravenous cefoxitin and a combination of gentamicin and metronidazole as prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 1983; 26(10):661-4. DOI: 10.1007/BF02553338. View

3.
. Ceftizoxime: a third-generation cephalosporin active against anaerobic bacteria. Committee on Antimicrobial Agents, Canadian Infectious Disease Society. CMAJ. 1990; 142(11):1209-12. PMC: 1452577. View

4.
Nichols R . Prophylaxis for intraabdominal surgery. Rev Infect Dis. 1984; 6 Suppl 1:S276-82. DOI: 10.1093/clinids/6.supplement_1.s276. View

5.
Quintiliani R, Nightingale C . Antimicrobials and therapeutic decision making: an historical perspective. Pharmacotherapy. 1991; 11(1 ( Pt 2)):6S-13S. View