[Evidence-based medicine, health costs and treatment of intra-abdominal infection].

Institut Universitari de Salut Pública de Catalunya, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona.
Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica (Impact Factor: 1.88). 02/1999; 17 Suppl 2:86-94.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Anti-infectious drugs are among the most-prescribed medications in the community, in 1997 being more than 9% of all drugs prescribed by the Spanish National Health System. In the particular case of the treatment of patients with moderate or severe intra-abdominal infection, economic aspects are important. Antimicrobial therapy is responsible for as much as 50% of the drug budget in some Spanish hospitals. On the other hand, as more options become available for the treatment of intra-abdominal infection, it is important to know their clinical and economic consequences. Imipenem/cilastatin (IC) is a broad-spectrum beta-lactam antibiotic that has demonstrated its effectiveness in the treatment of nosocomial and community-acquired bacterial infections.
The objective of this study was to determine if IC has a favorable cost-effectiveness relation compared to other antibiotic therapies for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.
A cost-effectiveness analysis was made based on retrospective information on the treatment of patients over 18 with clinical suspicion of moderate-to-severe intra-abdominal infection. Health-care results were measured in natural health units (percentage of clinically favorable cases) in a systematic review of the literature. Direct health-care costs associated with the treatments compared were calculated. The other options studied, apart from IC, included the most common and least expensive option (a combination of an aminoglycoside and an anaerobicide [AA]) and an antibiotic from the same family as IC, meropenem (M).
The results, in terms of the percentage of patients with clinically favorable results, showed that the effectiveness of IC was equivalent to that of M (95.2% vs. 96.4%) and the AA association (88.0% vs. 86.6%). Analysis of cost minimization showed that the total cost per patient treated with the IC and M options was similar, but that the lower price of IC slightly reduced the total cost per patient treated (ptas. 455,320 IC and ptas. 483,404 M). In the comparison of IC and AA, the higher price of IC was compensated for by the lower cost associated with the duration of hospitalization in patients treated with IC (total cost per patients treated ptas. 844,678 IC and ptas. 1,009,180 AA).
The results of the meta-analysis showed that imipenem/cilastatin was highly effective (more than 90% clinically favorable results) and that it can be considered a minimum equivalent to meropenem and to the combination of an aminoglycoside and anaerobicide for the treatment of patients with moderate or severe intra-abdominal infection. Given the equivalence in effectiveness of the options studied, analysis of cost minimization was used to study their relative effectiveness. This analysis showed that IC was accompanied by lower costs per patient than M and AA. The most relevant variables in the study of the efficiency of the treatment of intra-abdominal infections were, in conditions of equivalent effectiveness, days of hospitalization (and associated costs) and drug price.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate whether preoperative immunonutrition might lead to a savings in patient care. Data on resources consumed to treat postoperative complications are scanty, but morbidity costs continue to be a major burden for any health care system. A recent randomized clinical trial carried out in well-nourished patients with gastrointestinal cancer showed that a 5-day preoperative oral immunonutrition reduced postoperative morbidity compared with conventional treatment (no supplementation). The abovementioned trial was the basis for the economic evaluation. In-hospital related costs of routine surgical care and costs of nutrition were calculated. Estimates of complication costs were based on both resources used for treatment and additional length of hospital stay. Cost comparison and cost-effectiveness analysis were then carried out. Total cost of nutrition was 3407 euro in the conventional group and 14,729 euro in the preoperative group. In patients without complication, the cost of in-hospital routine care was similar in both groups. The mean cost of complication was 6178 euro in the conventional group and 4639 euro in the preoperative group (p = .05). Total cost of patients with complications was 535,236 euro in the conventional group and 334,148 euro in the preoperative group. Total costs consumed 93% of the diagnosis-related-group (DRG) reimbursement rate in the conventional group and 78% in the preoperative group. Cost-effectiveness was 6245 euro for the conventional group and 2985 euro for the preoperative group. The costs of postoperative morbidity consumed a large amount of the DRG reimbursement rate. Preoperative immunonutrition was cost-effective in our series.
    Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 01/2005; 29(1 Suppl):S57-61. DOI:10.1177/01486071050290S1S57 · 3.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The 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.
    Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal 02/2015; 7. DOI:10.1016/j.jsps.2015.02.016 · 1.00 Impact Factor