Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26702257›Full record

ArticleSaudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society2015

Cost-minimization analysis of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in moderate to severe infections at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia.

Imraan Joosub, Andy Gray, Analyn Crisostomo, Abdul Salam

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Imraan JoosubDepartment of Pharmaceutical Care, PO Box 40740, Prince Muhammed bin Abdulaziz Hospital, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Al-Madina Al-Monowarrah, Saudi Arabia.
Andy GrayDivision of Pharmacology, Discipline of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Analyn CrisostomoDepartment of Pharmaceutical Care, PO Box 2477, Al-Hasa, 31982, King Abdulaziz Hospital, Al-Ahsa, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Saudi Arabia.
Abdul SalamKing Abdullah International Medical Research Center-Eastern Region (KAIMRC-ER), Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, PO Box 2477, Al-Hasa 31982, Saudi Arabia.
King Abdulaziz Hospital · SAKing Abdullah International Medical Research Center · SAPrince Mohammed bin Abdulaziz Hospital · SAUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this study was to compare the costs of management of moderate to severe infections in patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin (IC) and meropenem (MEM). Pharmacoeconomic studies in Saudi Arabia are scarce. The current hospital formulary contains 2 carbapenems: IC and MEM. These antibiotics share a similar spectrum of activity. There are conflicting reviews with regard to the relative cost-effectiveness of these two agents.

methodsA retrospective, single-centre cohort study of 88 patients of IC versus MEM in moderate to severe infections was performed, applying cost-minimization analysis (CMA) methods. In accordance with CMA methods, the assumption of equivalent efficacy was first demonstrated by literature retrieved and appraised. Adult patients (⩾18 years old) diagnosed with moderate to severe infections, including skin and skin structure infections (SSIs), sepsis, intra-abdominal infections (IAIs), respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections (UTIs) and hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), who were prescribed IC 500 mg every six hours intravenously (2 g per day) or MEM 1 g every eight hours (3 g per day), were included in the study. Only direct costs related to the management of the infections were included, in accordance with a payer perspective.

resultsOverall there was no difference in the mean total daily costs between IC (SAR 4784.46, 95% CI 4140.68, 5428.24) and MEM (4390.14, 95% CI 3785.82, 4994.45; p = 0.37). A significantly lower medicine acquisition cost per vial of IC was observed when compared to MEM, however there was a significantly higher cost attached to administration sets used in the IC group than the MEM group. Consultation, nursing and physician costs were not significantly different between the groups. No differences were observed in costs associated with adverse drug events (ADEs).

conclusionThis study has shown that while acquisition costs of IC at a dose of 500 mg q6 h may be lower than for MEM 1 g q8 h, mean total costs per day were not significantly different between IC and MEM, indicating that medicine costs are only a small element of the overall costs of managing moderate to severe infections.

Indexed as

AntibioticsAntimicrobial therapyCarbapenemsCost-minimization analysisImipenemMeropenemModerate to severe infectionsPharmacoeconomicsSaudi Arabia

Identifiers

PMID26702257
PMCPMC4669425
OpenAlexW2019791517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.