Salas M, Caro JJ, Molinar F

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 115-120
PDF size: 148.63 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Intraabdominal infections are caused by mixed microorganisms and thus require a combination of antimicrobial agents. Objectives: To determine cost-effectiveness of the of combination cefepime-metronidazole compared to cefotaxime-metronidazole in treatment of patients with intraabdominal infections. Design: Economic study based on a randomized clinical trial comparing cefepime-metronidazole to cefotaxime-metronidazole. The clinical trial was carried out at the Intensive Care Unit of the Hospital de Especialidades, Centro Médico Nacional La Raza, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social in Mexico City. Sixty adults with diagnosis of complicated intraabdominal infection were included. Information concerning resource use and costs was collected for all patients. The perspective of the study was that of a third-party payer and no discounting was applied. Results: Clinical and bacteriologic efficacy was similar in the two groups. Total costs per patient were lower in the study group ($189,746 U.S. $19,422) compared to control group ($200,921, M.N. U.S. $20,567). Conclusion: The combination of cefepime-metro-nidazole reduces average total costs, resulting in savings of approximately $11,200 (U.S. $1146) per patient.

REFERENCES

1. 1. Sitges-Serra A, Guirao X, Díaz J, Azanza R, Rodrí-guez Noriega A, Lizasoain M, et al. Comparación prospectiva, aleatoria y abierta de meropenem frente a cefotaxima y metronidazol en el tra-tamiento de las infecciones intraabdominales. Med Clin 1998;111:88-91.

2. 2. Mosdell DM, Morris DM, Voltura A, Pitcher DE, Twiest MW, Milne RL, et al. Antibiotic treatment for surgical peritonitis. Ann Surg 1991;214:543-549.

3. 3. Voutsinas D, Mavroudis T, Avlamis A, Giama-rellou H. Comparative in vitro activity of cefepime (BMY 28142) against multiresistant nosocomial isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1989;8:917-919.

4. 4. Ramphal R, Gucalp R, Rotstein C, Cimino M, Oblon D. Clinical experience with single agent and combination regimens in the management of infection in the febrile neutropenic patient. Am J Med 1996;100 (Suppl 6A):83S-89S.

5. 5. Barradell LB, Bryson HM. Cefepime. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic pro-perties and therapeutic use. Drugs 1994;47:471-505.

6. 6. Berne TV, Yellin AE, Appleman MD, Heseltine PN, Gill MA. A clinical comparison of cefepime and metronidazole versus clyndamicin-gentamicin in the antibiotic management of surgical treated advanced appendicitis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1993; 177 (Suppl):18-22.

7. 7. Barie PS, Vogel SB, Dellinger EP, Rotstein OD, Solomkin JS, Yang JY, et al. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing cefepime plus metronidazole with imipenem-cilastatin in the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infec-tions. Cefepime Intraabdominal Infection Study Group. Arch Surg 1997;132:1294-1302.

8. 8. Sanders WE Jr, Tenney JH, Kessler RE. Efficacy of cefepime in the treatment of infections due to multiply resistant Enterobacter species. Clin Infect Dis 1996;23:454-461.

9. 9. http://www.x-rates.com/calculator.html.

10. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Dirección Regional La Raza, http://www.imss.gob.mx/transparencia/Compró_RZAMedicamentos.htm.

11. Nathens AB, Rotstein OD. Antimicrobial therapy for intraabdominal infection. Am J Surg 1996; 172: 1S-6S.

12. Geroulanos SJ. Meropenem versus imipenem-cilas-tatin in intraabdominal infections requiring surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother 1995;36:191-205.