Suggestions
Journal Information
Vol. 30. Issue S1.
XXIV Brazilian Congress of Infectious Diseases 2025
(March 2026)
Vol. 30. Issue S1.
XXIV Brazilian Congress of Infectious Diseases 2025
(March 2026)
71
Full text access

THE PHARMACOECONOMIC IMPACT OF PHARMACEUTICAL INTERVENTION IN ANTIMICROBIAL STEWARDSHIP

Visits
116
Laura Batista Campos
Corresponding author
laura.batistacampos@gmail.com

Corresponding author:
, Guilherme Scodelario Bettencourt, Bárbara Caterine Pegoraro, Rômulo Cardoso da Silva, Elisangela Lucia de Oliveira, Ezequiel Oliveira Felipe, Juliana Januzzi Costa, Edvânia Silva, Odeli Nicole Encinas Sejas, Rosemeire Lima Lessi, Ícaro Boszczowski
Hospital Nove de Julho, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
This item has received
Article information
Special issue
This article is part of special issue:
Vol. 30. Issue S1

XXIV Brazilian Congress of Infectious Diseases 2025

More info
Introduction

In the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP), the pharmacist acts as a pillar in promoting the rational use of these agents through pharmacotherapeutic analysis and pharmaceutical interventions (PIs). Their role, beyond the clinical focus, contributes to the optimization of financial resources through dose, route of administration, dosage, dilution adjustments, and therapy monitoring. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that pharmaceutical evaluation transcends patient safety, directly impacting financial resource management.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional analytical study to evaluate the economic impact of PIs on antimicrobials between January and April 2025. The reduction of therapeutic costs was quantified based on the average value of the antimicrobial, reconstituting agent, diluent, and supply kits, multiplied by the daily frequency and duration of treatment. The savings were estimated by the difference between pre- and post-intervention costs.

Results

During the study period, 907 PIs related to antimicrobials were performed. Of these, 191 (21%) generated total savings of R$ 125,811.57, reducing the estimated cost from R$ 187,053.34 to R$ 61,241.77 — a 67% reduction. Most savings came from antibiotics (R$ 87,787.61; 185 PIs), while antifungals (6 PIs) contributed R$ 38,023.96. PIs with the greatest pharmacoeconomic impact were related to dose (29.3%), frequency (28.8%), pertinence (15.7%), and treatment duration (15.2%). Critical units (ICU and semi-intensive) accounted for 97 interventions (51%), generating R$ 73,883.26 in savings, representing a 39.5% cost reduction. In non-critical units, 94 (49%) PIs resulted in R$ 51,928.31 in savings, a 20% cost reduction. The substances that most contributed to savings were isavuconazole and ceftazidime-avibactam (48% of total savings; R$ 60,554.43), followed by teicoplanin, meropenem, micafungin, and piperacillin+tazobactam (37%; R$ 47,095.28). The remaining 26 substances accounted for 15% (R$ 18,231.86).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that pharmacotherapeutic interventions within the context of the Antimicrobial Stewardship Program go beyond patient safety, establishing themselves as an essential strategy for optimizing financial resources. Analysis of the period from January to April 2025 revealed that only 21% of the interventions resulted in savings of R$ 125,811.57, leading to a 67% reduction in antimicrobial treatment costs.

Keywords:
Pharmacoeconomics
Pharmaceutical Intervention
Antimicrobials
Stewardship
Full text is only available in PDF
Download PDF
The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
Article options
Tools