Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (Xigris) for the treatment of severe sepsis in adults:a systematic review and economic evaluation

Authors: Green C, Dinnes J, Takeda A, Shepherd J, Hartwell D, Cave C, Payne E, Cuthbertson BH

Journal: Health Technology Assessment Volume: 9 Issue: 11

Publication date: March 2005



Green C, Dinnes J, Takeda A, Shepherd J, Hartwell D, Cave C, et al.Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (Xigris) for the treatment of severe sepsis in adults:a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2005;9(11)

Download: Citation (for this publication as a .ris file) (5.2 KB)

Journal issues* can be purchased by completing the form.

The cost of reports varies according to number of pages and postage address. The minimum cost for a copy sent to a UK address is £30.00. We will contact you on receipt of your completed form to advise you of actual cost. If you have any queries, please contact

*We regret that unfortunately we are unable to supply bound print copies of Health Technology Assessment published before issue 12:31. However, PDFs are available to print from the "Downloads" tab of the issue page.


No responses have been published. If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Post your response



Middle Initial

Occupation / Job title

Affiliation / Employer



Other authors

For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas

Statement of competing interests

We believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.

If yes, provide details below:

Enter response title

Enter response message


Security key

Regenerate security key

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Downloads section on this page.



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.


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.


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.

Share this page

Email this page
Publication updates

If you would like to receive information on publications and the latest news, click below to sign up.