Cost-effectiveness of ampicillin/sulbactam versus cefoxitin in the treatment of pelvic inflammatory disease

Michael A. Wynd, David L. Hemsell, Joseph A. Paladino

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether ampicillin/sulbactam or cefoxitin is the more cost-effective antibiotic for treating women with acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Methods: A retrospective pharmacoeconomic analysis of a prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted from the hospital perspective, comparing ampicillin/sulbactam to cefoxitin in the treatment of women with acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Cost-effectiveness analysis was used to characterize, measure, and compare costs and potential economic differences between treatment regimens. Sensitivity analysis was used to alter the key variables in the economic model to test the strength of the decision. Results: Seventy-six women treated with ampicillin/sulbactam (3 g intravenously (IV) every 6 hours) and 41 women treated with cefoxitin (2 g IV every 6 hours) evaluated for efficacy in the clinical trial comprised the economic analysis. The two groups were similar in demographic characteristics and adverse events. Ampicillin/sulbactam was more effective than cefoxitin (P = 0.05) in the clinical trial. The mean cost of treatment per patient in the ampicillin/sulbactam group, $4,940 was less than that in the cefoxitin group, $5,583 (P < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses varying drug acquisition cost or hospital per diem did not alter the economic decision; ampicillin/sulbactam was less costly than cefoxitin across all levels of cost comparison. Varying clinical success rates revealed that cefoxitin would need to be 7% more effective than ampicillin/sulbactam in order to change the economic decision in favor of cefoxitin. Conclusion: Ampicillin/sulbactam was cost-effective compared to cefoxitin for the treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease in this patient population.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)35-48
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Infectious Disease Pharmacotherapy
Volume4
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1999

Fingerprint

Cefoxitin
Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Economics
Costs and Cost Analysis
Therapeutics
Clinical Trials
Economic Models
sultamicillin
Pharmaceutical Economics
Drug Costs
Health Care Costs
Randomized Controlled Trials
Demography
Anti-Bacterial Agents

Keywords

  • Antibiotic(s)
  • Female
  • Pharmacoeconomics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Microbiology (medical)

Cite this

Cost-effectiveness of ampicillin/sulbactam versus cefoxitin in the treatment of pelvic inflammatory disease. / Wynd, Michael A.; Hemsell, David L.; Paladino, Joseph A.

In: Journal of Infectious Disease Pharmacotherapy, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1999, p. 35-48.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b40841b8a51d4a2ab68f0c8a1f0ec5c8,
title = "Cost-effectiveness of ampicillin/sulbactam versus cefoxitin in the treatment of pelvic inflammatory disease",
abstract = "Objective: To determine whether ampicillin/sulbactam or cefoxitin is the more cost-effective antibiotic for treating women with acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Methods: A retrospective pharmacoeconomic analysis of a prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted from the hospital perspective, comparing ampicillin/sulbactam to cefoxitin in the treatment of women with acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Cost-effectiveness analysis was used to characterize, measure, and compare costs and potential economic differences between treatment regimens. Sensitivity analysis was used to alter the key variables in the economic model to test the strength of the decision. Results: Seventy-six women treated with ampicillin/sulbactam (3 g intravenously (IV) every 6 hours) and 41 women treated with cefoxitin (2 g IV every 6 hours) evaluated for efficacy in the clinical trial comprised the economic analysis. The two groups were similar in demographic characteristics and adverse events. Ampicillin/sulbactam was more effective than cefoxitin (P = 0.05) in the clinical trial. The mean cost of treatment per patient in the ampicillin/sulbactam group, $4,940 was less than that in the cefoxitin group, $5,583 (P < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses varying drug acquisition cost or hospital per diem did not alter the economic decision; ampicillin/sulbactam was less costly than cefoxitin across all levels of cost comparison. Varying clinical success rates revealed that cefoxitin would need to be 7{\%} more effective than ampicillin/sulbactam in order to change the economic decision in favor of cefoxitin. Conclusion: Ampicillin/sulbactam was cost-effective compared to cefoxitin for the treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease in this patient population.",
keywords = "Antibiotic(s), Female, Pharmacoeconomics",
author = "Wynd, {Michael A.} and Hemsell, {David L.} and Paladino, {Joseph A.}",
year = "1999",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "35--48",
journal = "Journal of Infectious Disease Pharmacotherapy",
issn = "1068-7777",
publisher = "Pharmaceutical Products Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness of ampicillin/sulbactam versus cefoxitin in the treatment of pelvic inflammatory disease

AU - Wynd, Michael A.

AU - Hemsell, David L.

AU - Paladino, Joseph A.

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - Objective: To determine whether ampicillin/sulbactam or cefoxitin is the more cost-effective antibiotic for treating women with acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Methods: A retrospective pharmacoeconomic analysis of a prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted from the hospital perspective, comparing ampicillin/sulbactam to cefoxitin in the treatment of women with acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Cost-effectiveness analysis was used to characterize, measure, and compare costs and potential economic differences between treatment regimens. Sensitivity analysis was used to alter the key variables in the economic model to test the strength of the decision. Results: Seventy-six women treated with ampicillin/sulbactam (3 g intravenously (IV) every 6 hours) and 41 women treated with cefoxitin (2 g IV every 6 hours) evaluated for efficacy in the clinical trial comprised the economic analysis. The two groups were similar in demographic characteristics and adverse events. Ampicillin/sulbactam was more effective than cefoxitin (P = 0.05) in the clinical trial. The mean cost of treatment per patient in the ampicillin/sulbactam group, $4,940 was less than that in the cefoxitin group, $5,583 (P < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses varying drug acquisition cost or hospital per diem did not alter the economic decision; ampicillin/sulbactam was less costly than cefoxitin across all levels of cost comparison. Varying clinical success rates revealed that cefoxitin would need to be 7% more effective than ampicillin/sulbactam in order to change the economic decision in favor of cefoxitin. Conclusion: Ampicillin/sulbactam was cost-effective compared to cefoxitin for the treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease in this patient population.

AB - Objective: To determine whether ampicillin/sulbactam or cefoxitin is the more cost-effective antibiotic for treating women with acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Methods: A retrospective pharmacoeconomic analysis of a prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted from the hospital perspective, comparing ampicillin/sulbactam to cefoxitin in the treatment of women with acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Cost-effectiveness analysis was used to characterize, measure, and compare costs and potential economic differences between treatment regimens. Sensitivity analysis was used to alter the key variables in the economic model to test the strength of the decision. Results: Seventy-six women treated with ampicillin/sulbactam (3 g intravenously (IV) every 6 hours) and 41 women treated with cefoxitin (2 g IV every 6 hours) evaluated for efficacy in the clinical trial comprised the economic analysis. The two groups were similar in demographic characteristics and adverse events. Ampicillin/sulbactam was more effective than cefoxitin (P = 0.05) in the clinical trial. The mean cost of treatment per patient in the ampicillin/sulbactam group, $4,940 was less than that in the cefoxitin group, $5,583 (P < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses varying drug acquisition cost or hospital per diem did not alter the economic decision; ampicillin/sulbactam was less costly than cefoxitin across all levels of cost comparison. Varying clinical success rates revealed that cefoxitin would need to be 7% more effective than ampicillin/sulbactam in order to change the economic decision in favor of cefoxitin. Conclusion: Ampicillin/sulbactam was cost-effective compared to cefoxitin for the treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease in this patient population.

KW - Antibiotic(s)

KW - Female

KW - Pharmacoeconomics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033452940&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033452940&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0033452940

VL - 4

SP - 35

EP - 48

JO - Journal of Infectious Disease Pharmacotherapy

JF - Journal of Infectious Disease Pharmacotherapy

SN - 1068-7777

IS - 1

ER -