ArticlePharmacoEconomics1994
Cost-effectiveness comparison of cefepime and ceftazidime using decision analysis.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cefepime monotherapy as an empirical initial treatment of patients with febrile neutropenia.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2002Trial
- Cost effectiveness of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole versus imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.PharmacoEconomics · 1999Trial
- Changes in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics after cefepime shortage: a time series analysis.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2012Article
- Direct costs in patients hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia after non-response to outpatient treatment with macrolide antibacterials in the US.PharmacoEconomics · 2007Article
- Cost effectiveness of cephalosporin monotherapy and aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. For the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients.PharmacoEconomics · 2000Article
- A short term cost-effectiveness model for oral antidiabetic medicines in Europe.PharmacoEconomics · 1998Article
- Decision analysis modelling of costs and outcomes following cefepime monotherapy in Canada.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses · 1997Article
- Ceftazidime. An update of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy.Drugs · 1995Review
- Cefepime. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic use.Drugs · 1994Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis, from the institutional perspective, was performed on the 1637 clinically evaluable patients who participated in randomised studies of cefepime versus ceftazidime. The clinical success rate was 88% for patients in both the cefepime and ceftazidime groups. Adverse events occurred in 16.5% of cefepime and 19.0% of ceftazidime patients (p greater than 0.05). In most cases cefepime was administered every 12 hours while ceftazidime was administered every 8 hours. The amount of drug administered per patient (mean+/-SEM) was 17.6+/-0.4g of cefepime and 29.1+/-0.8g of ceftazidime (p less than 0.01). The median number of days of antibiotic treatment was 8 for each group. Decision and sensitivity analyses of drug price and hospital bed cost demonstrated that cefepime was consistently more cost effective than ceftazidime. The probability of clinical success varied between 60 and 97% and revealed that ceftazidime would have to be 31% more effective than cefepime to change the economic decision. If the acquisition prices per gram of drug are similar, cefepime will be cost effective compared with ceftazidime.
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.