Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 7, 2026
Establishing the Minimal Bactericidal Concentration of an Antimicrobial Agent for Planktonic Cells (MBC-P) and Biofilm Cells (MBC-B)
Published on: January 2, 2014
A simple cost-saving measure: 2.5% mafenide acetate solution.
Amir Ibrahim1, Shawn Fagan, Tim Keaney
1From the *Department of Surgery, Division of Burns, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Shriners Hospital, Boston; and †Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
A 2.5% mafenide acetate solution is effective for burn treatment, reducing costs without increasing infection rates. This study supports its use over the traditional 5% formulation for improved cost-effectiveness in pediatric burn care.
Area of Science:
- Burn Treatment
- Pharmacoeconomics
- Infectious Disease Control
Background:
- The optimal concentration of mafenide acetate for burn treatment remains unclear.
- Traditionally, a 5% mafenide acetate solution has been used, despite evidence supporting a 2.5% concentration, making it a high-cost medication.
- A new policy aimed to evaluate the cost and patient outcomes of implementing a 2.5% mafenide acetate solution while restricting the 5% formulation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the cost-effectiveness of a 2.5% mafenide acetate solution compared to the 5% formulation.
- To evaluate patient outcomes, including infection rates and adverse events, associated with the new policy.
- To determine if a lower concentration of mafenide acetate is sufficient for treating burn patients.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective review of patients receiving mafenide acetate at a pediatric burn hospital before and after policy implementation.
- Analysis of duration of therapy, adverse events, cost, wound infection incidence, and bacteremia.
- Comparison of treatment outcomes between patients receiving 5% and 2.5% mafenide acetate solutions.
Main Results:
- The total cost decreased significantly from $125,000 in 2009 (5% solution) to $38,632 in 2010 (mix of 5% and 2.5% solutions).
- Cost per patient reduced from $1811 to $804 after policy implementation.
- No significant differences were observed in the incidence of bacteremia or wound infection between the two concentrations.
Conclusions:
- A 2.5% mafenide acetate solution is a viable and cost-effective alternative for burn treatment.
- The implementation of a 2.5% solution policy did not negatively impact patient outcomes regarding infection.
- This approach offers significant cost savings in a pediatric burn hospital setting.
