Annie Bui, Caitlin Schumann, Jennie Le, Treva Jones, Clair Schwendeman
{"title":"Comparison of Efficacy and Pharmacoeconomic Outcomes Between Calfactant and Poractant Alfa in Preterm Infants With Respiratory Distress Syndrome.","authors":"Annie Bui, Caitlin Schumann, Jennie Le, Treva Jones, Clair Schwendeman","doi":"10.5863/1551-6776-29.3.241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In order to evaluate the impact of the surfactant of choice selection, primary end points were to compare the average number of doses per patient, need for mechanical ventilation on day 3, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality between calfactant and poractant alfa in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Secondary outcomes included administration complications, development of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), and estimated average per patient cost among the study population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review was performed at a level IV neonatal intensive care unit between January 2020 and December 2021 to compare the efficacy, safety, and pharmacoeconomic outcomes -following a surfactant of choice switch from calfactant to poractant alfa in preterm infants with RDS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Final analysis included 253 premature infants with gestational age (GA) between 22 and 36 weeks who met inclusion criteria. A total of 118 patients who received calfactant required higher average number of doses, 1.5 vs 1.3 doses (p = 0.031), and had more administration complications than 135 patients who received poractant alfa (10.2 vs 2.2%, p = 0.008). The need for redosing, mechanical ventilation on day 3, hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and development of BPD were comparable between both groups. However, the estimated average per patient cost for poractant alfa was 32% higher than calfactant ($1,901 vs $1,439, p <0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the pharmacoeconomic disadvantage, preterm infants who received poractant alfa needed fewer doses and were less likely to have administration complications compared with those who received calfactant.</p>","PeriodicalId":37484,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics","volume":"29 3","pages":"241-247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11163911/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5863/1551-6776-29.3.241","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: In order to evaluate the impact of the surfactant of choice selection, primary end points were to compare the average number of doses per patient, need for mechanical ventilation on day 3, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality between calfactant and poractant alfa in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Secondary outcomes included administration complications, development of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), and estimated average per patient cost among the study population.
Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed at a level IV neonatal intensive care unit between January 2020 and December 2021 to compare the efficacy, safety, and pharmacoeconomic outcomes -following a surfactant of choice switch from calfactant to poractant alfa in preterm infants with RDS.
Results: Final analysis included 253 premature infants with gestational age (GA) between 22 and 36 weeks who met inclusion criteria. A total of 118 patients who received calfactant required higher average number of doses, 1.5 vs 1.3 doses (p = 0.031), and had more administration complications than 135 patients who received poractant alfa (10.2 vs 2.2%, p = 0.008). The need for redosing, mechanical ventilation on day 3, hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and development of BPD were comparable between both groups. However, the estimated average per patient cost for poractant alfa was 32% higher than calfactant ($1,901 vs $1,439, p <0.001).
Conclusions: Despite the pharmacoeconomic disadvantage, preterm infants who received poractant alfa needed fewer doses and were less likely to have administration complications compared with those who received calfactant.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics is the official journal of the Pediatric Pharmacy Advocacy Group. JPPT is a peer-reviewed multi disciplinary journal that is devoted to promoting the safe and effective use of medications in infants and children. To this end, the journal publishes practical information for all practitioners who provide care to pediatric patients. Each issue includes review articles, original clinical investigations, case reports, editorials, and other information relevant to pediatric medication therapy. The Journal focuses all work on issues related to the practice of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics. The scope of content includes pharmacotherapy, extemporaneous compounding, dosing, methods of medication administration, medication error prevention, and legislative issues. The Journal will contain original research, review articles, short subjects, case reports, clinical investigations, editorials, and news from such organizations as the Pediatric Pharmacy Advocacy Group, the FDA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, and so on.