OBJECTIVES Complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) are difficult to treat infections that may range from severe infections in previously healthy patients to minor infections in patients with major or immunocompromised comorbidities. As the number of risk factors increase, as does the prognosis of cSSTI, possibility of rapid disease progression and lower cure rates, and resistance to antibiotics. As initial treatment failure is a known factor to extend hospitalization, the increased number of treatment alternatives and antibiotic usage may reflect directly in the treatment cost. Therefore, the importance of initial antibiotic choice therapy is pivotal to achieving early response and possibly early discharge, thus reducing hospital expenditure.Considering this scenario were developed a cost–consequence for ceftaroline fosamil in the perspective of Brazilian private healthcare system (BPHS).

METHODS Decision-tree model was adapted to simulate the use of ceftaroline fosamil in comparison with empiric intravenous antibiotic therapies (vancomycin, linezolid, tigecycline, daptomycin, clindamycin, tedizolid) for a hypothetical cohort of 100 adult patients hospitalized with cSSTI. The model perspective was the BHPS.

RESULTS The analysis demonstrated that the use of ceftaroline fosamil for cSSTI may represent significant economic savings in total treatment cost (length of stay, Gram-negative coverage, and healthcare resource utilization) due to increased clinical response rates versus all comparators. It is important to note that this cost reduction was sufficient to offset, ceftaroline fosamil increased acquisition costs as the initial antibiotic therapy. Cost-savings from using ceftaroline fosamil ranged from BRL 23,000 to BLR 418,000 when compared to linezolid and daptomycin, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS Ceftaroline fosamil demonstrated potential as an initial antibiotic therapy when compared to vancomycin, tigecycline, clindamycin, and tedizolid for adults hospitalized with cSSTI, given an increase in the number of patients responding to treatment and a decrease in total costs from the perspective of the BHPS.