Pharmacoeconomic analysis of ampicillin-sulbactam versus cefoxitin in the treatment of intraabdominal infections

被引:0
|
作者
Messick, CR
Mamdani, M
McNicholl, IR
Danziger, LH
Rodvold, KA
Condon, RE
Walker, AP
Edmiston, CE
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Coll Pharm, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
[2] Univ Illinois, Coll Med, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
[3] Med Coll Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USA
[4] Wayne State Univ, Coll Pharm, Detroit Med Ctr, Detroit, MI 48202 USA
来源
PHARMACOTHERAPY | 1998年 / 18卷 / 01期
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
We conducted a retrospective pharmacoeconomic analysis of a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing the beta-lactamase inhibitor combination ampicillin-sulbactam (96 patients) and the cephalosporin cefoxitin (101) in the treatment of intraabdominal infections. An institutional perspective was adopted for the analysis. The primary outcomes of interest were cure and failure rates, development of new infection, and antibiotic-related adverse events. Epidemiologic data pertaining to outcomes was retrieved primarily from the trial, although results of other published studies were taken into consideration through extensive sensitivity analyses. Data pertaining to potential resource use and economic impact were retrieved mainly from the University Health Consortium and hospital-specific sources. When considering only costs associated with drug acquisition through cost-minimization analysis, a potential savings of $37.24/patient may be realized with ampicillin-sulbactam relative to cefoxitin based on an average 7-day regimen. Outcome data collected for the entire hospitalization during the trial revealed an approximately 9% greater frequency of failure with cefoxitin relative to ampicillin-sulbactam. When considering all outcomes of interest in the initial base-case analysis, a potential cost savings of approximately $890/patient may be realized with ampicillin-sulbactam relative to cefoxitin. In assessing the impact of the significant variability in probability and cost estimates, Monte Carlo analysis revealed a savings of $425/patient for ampicillin-sulbactam over cefoxitin (95% CI $618-1516). Given the model assumptions, our analysis suggests a 78% certainty level that savings will be experienced when ampicillin-sulbactam is chosen over cefoxitin.
引用
收藏
页码:175 / 183
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparison of Ceftizoxime Plus Ampicillin-Sulbactam versus Gentamicin Plus Ampicillin-Sulbactam in the Prevention of Post-Transplant Early Bacterial Infections in Liver Transplant Recipients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Shafiekhani, Mojtaba
    Karimzadeh, Iman
    Nikeghbalian, Saman
    Firoozifar, Mohammad
    Pouladfar, Gholamreza
    Vazin, Afsaneh
    INFECTION AND DRUG RESISTANCE, 2020, 13 : 89 - 98
  • [22] A COMPARISON OF AMPICILLIN PLUS SULBACTAM (AS) VERSUS EITHER NAFCILLIN (N) OR CEFOXITIN (C) IN THE TREATMENT OF SKIN AND SKIN STRUCTURE INFECTIONS
    DOCKERY, B
    GRAVES, A
    MELTON, D
    CARR, M
    BONNER, J
    CLINICAL RESEARCH, 1991, 39 (04): : A809 - A809
  • [23] A randomized trial of tigecycline versus ampicillin-sulbactam or amoxicillin-clavulanate for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections
    Matthews, Peter
    Alpert, Marc
    Rahav, Galia
    Rill, Denise
    Zito, Edward
    Gardiner, David
    Pedersen, Ron
    Babinchak, Timothy
    McGovern, Paul C.
    BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2012, 12
  • [24] Meropenem/colistin versus meropenem/ampicillin-sulbactam in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant pneumonia
    Khalili, Hossein
    Shojaei, Lida
    Mohammadi, Mostafa
    Beigmohammadi, Mohammad-Taghi
    Abdollahi, Alireza
    Doomanlou, Mahsa
    JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH, 2018, 7 (09) : 901 - 911
  • [25] A randomized trial of tigecycline versus ampicillin-sulbactam or amoxicillin-clavulanate for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections
    Peter Matthews
    Marc Alpert
    Galia Rahav
    Denise Rill
    Edward Zito
    David Gardiner
    Ron Pedersen
    Timothy Babinchak
    Paul C McGovern
    BMC Infectious Diseases, 12
  • [26] SULBACTAM AMPICILLIN VERSUS CEFOTETAN IN THE TREATMENT OF OBSTETRIC AND GYNECOLOGIC INFECTIONS
    SCALAMBRINO, S
    MANGIONI, C
    MILANI, R
    REGALLO, M
    NORCHI, S
    NEGRI, L
    CARRERA, S
    VIGANO, EF
    RUFFILLI, MP
    CANALE, MP
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 1989, : 21 - 27
  • [27] EFFICACY OF AMPICILLIN/SULBACTAM FOR THE TREATMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL INTRAABDOMINAL SEPSIS
    CISNEROS, RL
    BAWDON, RE
    ONDERDONK, AB
    CURRENT THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL, 1990, 48 (06): : 1021 - 1029
  • [28] BACTERICIDAL ACTIVITY OF LOW-DOSE CEFTIZOXIME PLUS METRONIDAZOLE COMPARED WITH CEFOXITIN AND AMPICILLIN-SULBACTAM
    FREEMAN, CD
    NIGHTINGALE, CH
    NICOLAU, DP
    BELLIVEAU, PP
    TESSIER, PR
    FU, Q
    XUAN, DW
    QUINTILIANI, R
    PHARMACOTHERAPY, 1994, 14 (02): : 185 - 190
  • [29] Ampicillin-sulbactam: an update on the use of parenteral and oral forms in bacterial infections
    Betrosian, Alex P.
    Douzinas, Emmanuel E.
    EXPERT OPINION ON DRUG METABOLISM & TOXICOLOGY, 2009, 5 (09) : 1099 - 1112
  • [30] Prospective, randomized comparison of ampicillin/sulbactam and cefoxitin for diabetic foot infections
    Erstad, BL
    McIntyre, KE
    VASCULAR SURGERY, 1997, 31 (04): : 419 - 425