ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2021
The Cost-effectiveness of Cefazolin Compared With Antistaphylococcal Penicillins for the Treatment of Methicillin-Sensitive
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of the cefazolin inoculum effect (CzIE) in nasal colonizing methicillin-susceptibleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2024Article
- Prevalence of the Cefazolin Inoculum Effect (CzIE) in Nasal Colonizing Methicillin-SusceptiblemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Economic Evaluation of Nemonoxacin, Moxifloxacin and Levofloxacin in the Treatment of Early Community-Acquired Pneumonia with Possible Pulmonary Tuberculosis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMethicillin-sensitive
methodsWe constructed a decision-analytic model comparing the use of cefazolin with ASPs for the treatment of MSSA bacteremia. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating deaths averted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty was addressed by plotting cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds.
resultsIn the base-case analysis, the cost associated with the cefazolin strategy was $38 863.1, and the associated probability of survival was 0.91. For the ASP strategy, the cost was $48 578.8, and the probability of survival was 0.81. The incremental difference in cost between the 2 strategies was $9715.7, with hospital length of stay being the main driver of cost, and the incremental difference in effectiveness was 0.10. Overall, cefazolin results in savings of $97 156.8 per death averted (ICER, $-97 156.8/death averted). In the probabilistic analysis, at a willingness-to-pay of $50 000, cefazolin had a 68% chance of being cost-effective compared with ASPs. In cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, the cefazolin strategy was cost-effective in 73.5%-81.8% of simulations compared with ASP for a willingness-to-pay ranging up to $50 000.
conclusionsThe use of cefazolin is a cost-effective strategy for the treatment of MSSA bacteremia and, when clinically appropriate, this strategy results in considerable health care cost-savings.
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.