ReviewPharmacoEconomics1992
Imipenem/cilastatin: a pharmacoeconomic appraisal of its use in intra-abdominal infections.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost effectiveness of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole versus imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.PharmacoEconomics · 1999Trial
- Meropenem versus cefuroxime plus gentamicin for treatment of serious infections in elderly patients.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 1998Trial
- JBP485, A Dual Inhibitor of Organic Anion Transporters (OATs) and Renal Dehydropeptidase-I (DHP-I), Protects Against Imipenem-Induced Nephrotoxicity.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Review
- Pharmacoeconomic studies on antibiotics: current controversies.PharmacoEconomics · 1994Article
- Cost analysis of imipenem-cilastatin versus clindamycin with tobramycin in the treatment of acute intra-abdominal infection.PharmacoEconomics · 1993Article
- Consumption of antibiotics in Sweden, 1975 to 1992: pharmacoeconomic and clinical aspects.PharmacoEconomics · 1992Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Imipenem/cilastatin possesses a very broad spectrum of antibacterial activity that encompasses the range of Gram-negative and Gram-positive aerobes and anaerobes usually associated with intra-abdominal and other polymicrobial infections. Its therapeutic efficacy is comparable to that of aminoglycoside/antianaerobe combination regimens, and the most commonly reported adverse effects are similar to those of other beta-lactam antibacterials and are generally of a non-serious nature. The acquisition cost of imipenem/cilastatin is generally greater than that of aminoglycoside/antianaerobe combination regimens, but treatment with the latter incurs the additional costs of multiple intravenous administration, aminoglycoside pharmacokinetic and other monitoring, and possible nephrotoxicity and ototoxicity. The available pharmacoeconomic studies show a trend towards lower total treatment costs with imipenem/cilastatin compared with gentamicin plus clindamycin. Results from other sources suggest that imipenem/cilastatin may achieve further cost savings through reduced duration of hospitalisation. Although further study is required to confirm these trends, it appears that the total treatment cost of imipenem/cilastatin does not exceed that of usual combination therapy and the risk of aminoglycoside-induced toxicity is avoided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.