ArticlePharmacoEconomics2001
Cost efficacy of tazobactam/piperacillin versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infection.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Empirical antibiotic treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam in patients with microbiologically-documented biliary tract infections.World journal of gastroenterology · 2004Trial
- Costs in rheumatology: results and lessons learned from the 'Hannover Costing Study'.Rheumatology international · 2006Article
- Efficacy of antibiotic penetration into pancreatic necrosis.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2006Article
- [Conceptual and methodological basics of cost assessments in rheumatology].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2004Article
- 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the cost, efficacy and cost efficacy of tazobactam/piperacillin and imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of intra-abdominal infection.
designThe analysis was retrospective and based on a decision tree. Effectiveness data were obtained from 19 published clinical trials. Direct costs were quantified per patient from the time the decision was made to administer the antibacterial to the end of the first course of treatment or the end of a subsequent course of treatment, if required. The primary end-point was the cost per successfully treated patient. The cost per life saved was also analysed. Various follow-up times were taken into account. PERSPECTIVE: German National Health Insurance funds. STUDY POPULATION: 1744 patients with intra-abdominal infection.
interventionsTazobactam/piperacillin (total daily dosage of 13.5 g/day) and imipenem/cilastatin (total daily dosage of 1.5 to 4 g/day). The mean duration of treatment varied from 5.5 to 8.2 days for tazobactam/piperacillin and 5 to 9.4 days for imipenem/cilastatin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND
resultsCompared with imipenem/cilastatin, treatment with tazobactam/piperacillin was more effective and the overall treatment costs were lower. In the base-case analysis, the cost-efficacy ratio (cost per successfully treated patient) was 7881 German deutschmarks (DM) for tazobactam/piperacillin and DM11,390 for imipenem/cilastatin. The incremental cost-efficacy ratio (per life saved) varied between -DM72,567 and -DM350,738 for tazobactam/piperacillin. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were robust against various assumptions on cost parameters, clinical outcomes and length of treatment. All costs reflect 1998 values; $US1 = DM1.85.
conclusionsThis study suggests that compared with imipenem/cilastatin, tazobactam/piperacillin is more cost efficacious in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections and that it offers a cost advantage through fewer relapses and lower daily therapeutic costs.
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.