...
首页> 外文期刊>Chest >Cost-effectiveness of Gatifloxacin vs Ceftriaxone With a Macrolide for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia
【24h】

Cost-effectiveness of Gatifloxacin vs Ceftriaxone With a Macrolide for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia

机译:加替沙星与头孢曲松联合大环内酯类药物治疗社区获得性肺炎的成本效益

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Study objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of sequential IV to oral gatifloxacin therapy vs IV ceftriaxone with or without IV erythromycin to oral clarithromycin therapy to treat community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) patients requiring hospitalization.nnPatients: Two hundred eighty-three patients enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial were eligible for inclusion in the cost-effectiveness analysis.nnMethods: Data collected included patient demographics, clinical and microbiological outcomes, length of stay (LOS), and antibiotic-related LOS (LOSAR). Costs evaluated include drug acquisition (level 1); plus costs of preparation, dispensing, and administration, treating adverse events, and clinical failures (level 2); plus hospital per diem costs (level 3). Robustness of economic findings was tested using sensitivity analyses.nnResults: Two hundred three patients were clinically and economically evaluable (98 receiving gatifloxacin and 105 receiving ceftriaxone). IV erythromycin was administered to 35 patients in the ceftriaxone-treated group. Oral conversion was achieved in 98% of patients in each group. Clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates did not differ statistically (98% and 97% with gatifloxacin vs 92% and 92% with ceftriaxone, respectively). Overall, neither geometric mean LOS nor LOSAR differed significantly (4.2 days and 4.1 days with gatifloxacin vs 4.9 days and 4.9 days with ceftriaxone, respectively). Treatment failures in the ceftriaxone group contributed to a mean incremental increase in LOSAR of 1.09 days and increased mean cost per patient. The geometric mean costs per patient (level 3) were $5,109 for gatifloxacin and $6,164 for ceftriaxone (p = 0.011). The cost-effectiveness ratios (mean cost per expected success) were $5,236:1 and $7,047:1 for gatifloxacin and ceftriaxone, respectively.nnConclusions: Gatifloxacin monotherapy for CAP patients requiring hospitalization is clinically effective and provides an economic advantage compared to the regimen of ceftriaxone with or without erythromycin IV with a switch to oral clarithromycin.
机译:研究目的:确定口服加替沙星序贯静脉内静脉注射加替沙星治疗与静脉内注射头孢曲松加或不注射红霉素相比,克拉霉素治疗需要住院的社区获得性肺炎(CAP)患者的成本效益。患者:283例患者在一项随机,双盲,临床试验中,有资格纳入成本效益分析。方法:收集的数据包括患者人口统计学,临床和微生物学结果,住院时间(LOS)和与抗生素相关的LOS(LOSAR)。评估的费用包括购药(第1级);加上准备,分发和给药,治疗不良事件和临床失败的费用(2级);加上医院的每日津贴(第3级)。结果:使用敏感性分析测试了经济结果的稳健性。结果:203例患者在临床和经济上都是可评估的(98例接受加替沙星治疗,105例接受头孢曲松治疗)。头孢曲松治疗组中35例患者接受了静脉注射红霉素。每组中有98%的患者实现了口腔转换。临床治愈率和微生物根除率无统计学差异(加替沙星分别为98%和97%,而头孢曲松钠分别为92%和92%)。总体而言,几何平均LOS和LOSAR均无显着差异(加替沙星分别为4.2天和4.1天,而头孢曲松钠分别为4.9天和4.9天)。头孢曲松组治疗失败导致LOSAR平均增加1.09天,每位患者的平均费用也增加。加替沙星每位患者的几何平均成本(第3级)为$ 5,109,头孢曲松钠为$ 6,164(p = 0.011)。加替沙星和头孢曲松的成本-效果比(平均预期成功成本)分别为$ 5,236:1和$ 7,047:1.nn结论:加替沙星单药治疗需要住院的CAP患者与头孢曲松钠方案相比在临床上有效并且具有经济优势伴或不伴红霉素IV改为口服克拉霉素。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号