ArticlePharmacoEconomics1999
Cost comparison of antibacterial therapies for serious infections. A New Zealand 3-hospital study.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the introduction of an antimicrobial drugs formulary in a general hospital in Slovenia.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 2004Article
- Economic aspects of severe sepsis: a review of intensive care unit costs, cost of illness and cost effectiveness of therapy.PharmacoEconomics · 2004Review
- Piperacillin/tazobactam: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in moderate to severe bacterial infections.PharmacoEconomics · 2001Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe first aim was to identify and determine the economic costs of the regimens currently used in 3 New Zealand hospitals in the treatment of bacterial infections in haematology patients with febrile neutropenia and in intensive care patients with severe infections. The second was to develop a spreadsheet-based decision analytic model for use by hospital decision-makers as an aid in evaluating the comparative cost of drug regimens. DESIGN AND
settingThe research utilised time and motion and microcosting techniques. The analytical perspective adopted for the study was that of a hospital administrator or clinical manager. PATIENTS AND
interventionsPatients were eligible for inclusion in the study if either they were treated with the imipenem/cilastatin monotherapy, or could have been treated with this regimen. The final analysis considered 360 patient-treatment days and 8 antibacterials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND
resultsDrug acquisition cost ranged from 4.52 New Zealand dollars ($NZ; 1997 values) per patient-treatment day for gentamicin to $NZ104.81 for imipenem. The cost per patient-treatment day (when other cost components such as fluid additives, giving sets and needles were added) ranged from $NZ8.75 for gentamicin to $NZ129.12 for tazobactam. Drug acquisition cost, as a percentage of total drug preparation and administration cost, ranged from 52% for gentamicin to 93% for piperacillin. Giving sets and intravenous (i.v.) fluids were found to be important cost items when they were required specifically for the treatment regimen. There was a mean monitoring rate of 0.40 at a cost of $NZ6.41 per patient-treatment day for gentamicin. It was estimated that nephrotoxicity could add between $NZ23 and $NZ43 per day to the cost of aminoglycoside treatment.
conclusionsAlthough the small sample sizes of the study mean that results should be regarded as indicative rather than conclusive, there were sufficient information to construct a working model and show how the total cost of an antibacterial regimen could be evaluated in practical terms. The important cost drivers were found to be drug cost, the use of fluids and giving sets, and monitoring.
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.