PharmacoEconomics · 2000
Cost effectiveness of cephalosporin monotherapy and aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. For the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Paladino J A, Fong L D, Forrest A, Ramphal R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative cost effectiveness of cephalosporin monotherapy options and aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy for the treatment of febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia.
DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from the institutional perspective.
METHODS: The analysis was based on 741 febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia enrolled in 5 randomised trials: 3 comparing monotherapy with ceftazidime or cefepime, and 2 comparing cefepime monotherapy versus aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. Resource utilisation included costs for study antibacterials, treatment of adverse effects and failures, and hospitalisation. The primary end-point was the overall cost of treatment per patient. Cost-effectiveness ratios were also analysed.
RESULTS: No significant differences in clinical success rates were detected. Median per-patient costs in the monotherapy comparisons were $US7849 for cefepime and $US7788 for ceftazidime [1997 values; not significantly different (NS)]. Corresponding costs for the monotherapy versus combination therapy comparisons were $US9780 for cefepime and $US10 159 for gentamicin/ureidopenicillin (NS). Despite a higher acquisition cost for cefepime, there were no statistically significant differences in cost effectiveness compared with either ceftazidime monotherapy or gentamicin/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. Sensitivity analyses revealed that monotherapy can be cost effective compared with combination therapy in many situations.
CONCLUSION: There were no economic differences between the 3 regimens tested. Therefore drug cost should not be a deciding factor when choosing antibacterial therapy for the treatment of febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia.
DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from the institutional perspective.
METHODS: The analysis was based on 741 febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia enrolled in 5 randomised trials: 3 comparing monotherapy with ceftazidime or cefepime, and 2 comparing cefepime monotherapy versus aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. Resource utilisation included costs for study antibacterials, treatment of adverse effects and failures, and hospitalisation. The primary end-point was the overall cost of treatment per patient. Cost-effectiveness ratios were also analysed.
RESULTS: No significant differences in clinical success rates were detected. Median per-patient costs in the monotherapy comparisons were $US7849 for cefepime and $US7788 for ceftazidime [1997 values; not significantly different (NS)]. Corresponding costs for the monotherapy versus combination therapy comparisons were $US9780 for cefepime and $US10 159 for gentamicin/ureidopenicillin (NS). Despite a higher acquisition cost for cefepime, there were no statistically significant differences in cost effectiveness compared with either ceftazidime monotherapy or gentamicin/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. Sensitivity analyses revealed that monotherapy can be cost effective compared with combination therapy in many situations.
CONCLUSION: There were no economic differences between the 3 regimens tested. Therefore drug cost should not be a deciding factor when choosing antibacterial therapy for the treatment of febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia.