Cost-effectiveness of ampicillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cillastatin in the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in diabetic patients
Cost-effectiveness of ampicillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cillastatin in the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in diabetic patients
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/clinids/24.1.57
复制
发表时间：
1997-01-01
影响因子：
11.8
通讯作者：
Karchmer, AW
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McKinnon, PS;Paladino, JA;Karchmer, AW
在90例糖尿病患者中进行了氨苄西林/舒巴坦（A/S）与亚胺培南/西司他丁（I/C）治疗威胁肢体的足部感染的双盲、随机研究，并进行了成本-效果分析。在临床成功率、不良事件频率、研究抗生素治疗持续时间或住院时间方面，两种治疗方法之间没有显著差异。计算了研究抗生素、治疗失败和不良事件以及住院的费用。A/S组的平均每例患者治疗费用为14，084美元，而I/C组为17，008美元（P = .05），主要是因为A/S组的药物和住院费用较低，不良事件较轻。不同药物价格或住院费用的敏感性分析表明，A/S始终比UC更具成本效益。改变每种药物的临床成功率显示，I/C必须比A/S有效30%才能改变经济决策。
A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed following a double-blind, randomized study of ampicillin/sulbactam (A/S) versus imipenem/cilastatin (I/C) for the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in 90 diabetic patients. There were no significant differences between the treatments in terms of clinical success rate, adverse-event frequency, duration of study antibiotic treatment, or length of hospitalization. Costs of the study antibiotics, treatment of failures and adverse events, and hospitalization were calculated. Mean per-patient treatment cost in the A/S group was $14,084, compared with $17,008 in the I/C group (P = .05), primarily because of lower drug and hospitalization costs and less-severe adverse events in the A/S group. Sensitivity analyses varying drug prices or hospital costs demonstrated that A/S was consistently more cost-effective than UC. Varying the clinical success rate for each drug revealed that I/C would have to be 30% more effective than A/S to change the economic decisions.