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 I/C. 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.
Mots-clés Pascal : Diabète, Pied, Membre, Sulbactam, Antibiotique, Association médicamenteuse, Imipénem, Traitement, Etude comparative, Cilastatine, Chimiothérapie, Coût, Ampicilline, Homme, Analyse coût efficacité, Hospitalisation, Infection, Carbapénème dérivé, Pénicilline dérivé, Endocrinopathie, Peau pathologie, Système ostéoarticulaire pathologie, Economie santé
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Diabetes mellitus, Foot, Limb, Sulbactam, Antibiotic, Drug combination, Imipenem, Treatment, Comparative study, Cilastatin, Chemotherapy, Costs, Ampicillin, Human, Cost efficiency analysis, Hospitalization, Infection, Carbapenem derivatives, Penicillin derivatives, Endocrinopathy, Skin disease, Diseases of the osteoarticular system, Health economy
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 97-0130724
Code Inist : 002B21E01B. Création : 21/05/1997.