ArticlePharmacoEconomics2000
Cost effectiveness of cephalosporin monotherapy and aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. For the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2000. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single daily dosing ceftriaxone and metronidazole vs standard triple antibiotic regimen for perforated appendicitis in children: a prospective randomized trial.Journal of pediatric surgery · 2008Trial
- Direct costs in patients hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia after non-response to outpatient treatment with macrolide antibacterials in the US.PharmacoEconomics · 2007Article
- Resource utilization and cost of episodes of febrile neutropenia in children with acute leukemias and lymphomas.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2003Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the relative cost effectiveness of cephalosporin monotherapy options and aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy for the treatment of febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia. DESIGN AND
settingThis was a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from the institutional perspective.
methodsThe analysis was based on 741 febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia enrolled in 5 randomised trials: 3 comparing monotherapy with ceftazidime or cefepime, and 2 comparing cefepime monotherapy versus aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. Resource utilisation included costs for study antibacterials, treatment of adverse effects and failures, and hospitalisation. The primary end-point was the overall cost of treatment per patient. Cost-effectiveness ratios were also analysed.
resultsNo significant differences in clinical success rates were detected. Median per-patient costs in the monotherapy comparisons were $US7849 for cefepime and $US7788 for ceftazidime [1997 values; not significantly different (NS)]. Corresponding costs for the monotherapy versus combination therapy comparisons were $US9780 for cefepime and $US10 159 for gentamicin/ureidopenicillin (NS). Despite a higher acquisition cost for cefepime, there were no statistically significant differences in cost effectiveness compared with either ceftazidime monotherapy or gentamicin/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. Sensitivity analyses revealed that monotherapy can be cost effective compared with combination therapy in many situations.
conclusionThere were no economic differences between the 3 regimens tested. Therefore drug cost should not be a deciding factor when choosing antibacterial therapy for the treatment of febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia.
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.