Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-Effectiveness of ceftriaxone 1 g vs second-generation cephalosporins in the treatment of pneumonia in general medical wards in Germany

  • Addendum
  • Published:
Infection Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The cost-effectiveness of ceftriaxone 1 g in the treatment of pneumonia in general medical wards was compared with that of second-generation cephalosporins. A total of 1,706 patients were treated with either a second-generation cephalosporin (cefotiam, cefuroxime) or ceftriaxone (single daily dose of 1 g), and 604 in each group were included in a matched-pair analysis. Cure or improvement in response to monotherapy was observed in 81.4% of patients on cefuroxime/cefotiam vs 91% of those on ceftriaxone (P<0.0001). Adverse events occurred with equal frequency in both groups (1.9%). In terms of mean hospital costs for antimicrobial medication, the staff required to administer it as well as laboratory and X-ray examinations, effective treatment with ceftriaxone is DM 193/$ 105 (25%) less expensive than effective treatment with a second-generation cephalosporin (P <0.001). From the perspective of the health insurance, the costs for a patient treated with ceftriaxone are DM 3,910/$ 2,140 vs DM 4,392/$ 2,400 for a patient treated with a second-generation cephalosporin (March 1998: USD 1=DM 1.83).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schulenburg, J. M., Uber, A.: Current issues in German health care. Pharmacoeconomics 12 (1997) 517–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Schmitz, W.: Antibiotika und Chemotherapeutika. In:Schwabe, U., Paffrath, D. (eds): Arzneiverordnungs-Report '95. Aktuelle Daten, Kosten, Trends und Kommentare. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart 1995, pp. 57–71.

    Google Scholar 

  3. American Thoracic Society: Hospital-acquired pneumonia in adults: diagnosis, assessment of severity, initial antimicrobial therapy, and preventive strategies. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 153 (1995) 1711–1725.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Huchon, G., Woodhead, M., Gialdroni-Grassi, G., Léophonte, P., Manresa, F., Schaberg, T., Torres, A., Didier, A., Dorca, J., El Ebiary, M., Roche, N.: Guidelines for management of adult community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections. Eur. Respir. J. 11 (1998) 986–991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft: Cephalosporine zur parenteralen Applikation—Konsensuskonferenz der Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V., Chemotherapie Journal 3 (1994) 101–115.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Low, D. E., Mandell, L. A.: A prospective open-label multicentre trial on the use of 1 g, once daily ceftriaxone in lower respiratory tract infections. Can. J. Infect. Dis. 5 (Suppl. C) (1994) 3C-8C.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Focht, J., Nösner, K.: Empfindlichkeitsspektrum von Ceftriaxon und anderen Antibiotika. Krankenhauspharmazie 11 (1997) 531–534.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Segev, S., Raz, R., Rubinstein, E., Shmuely, H., Hassin, D., Rosen, N., Platau, E., Ben Assuli, S., Pitlik, S.: Double-blind randomized study of 1 g versus 2 g intravenous ceftriaxone daily in the therapy of community-acquired infections. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 14 (1995) 851–855.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gesellschaft für Pharmainformationssysteme: GPI Krankenhaus-index 2. Quartal 1996. Frankfurt 1996.

  10. Strehl, E., Brennscheidt, U., Mülder, P.: Antibiotikatherapie schwerer Infektionen. Krankenhauspharmazie 8 (1995) 330–335.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Paradis, D., Vallee, F., Allard, S., Bisson, C., Daviau, N., Drapeau, D., Auger, F., LeBel, M.: Comparative study of pharmacokinetics and serum bactericidal activities of cefpirome, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, imipenem, and ciprofloxacin. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 36 (1992) 2085–2092.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Adu, A., Armour, C. L.: Drug utilisation review (DUR) of the third generation cephalosporins. Drugs 50 (1995) 423–439.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Beringer, P. M., Wong-Beringer, A., Rho, J. P.: Economic aspects of antibacterial adverse events. Pharmacoeconomics 13 (1998) 35–49.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Niebuhr, H., Nahrstedt, U., Rückert, K., Kaiser, W., Mosebach, B., Hoffmann, P., Schlote, F., Lauenroth-Mai, E., Schuhknecht, R., Justiz, R., Kracht, T., Meeth, A., Forycki, F., Lode, H., Frommelt, L., Langmaack, H.: Empirische Therapie der nosokomialen oder ambulant erworbenen bakteriellen Pneumonie. Chemotherapie Journal 1 (1993) 28–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Capri, S., Dellamano, R.: Cost-effectiveness in the hospital use of antibiotics: introductory considerations. J. Chemother. 5 (1993) 348–351.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Capri, S., Carella, E., Catena, E.: Valutazione clinica ad economica della terapia delle infezioni acute delle basse vie respiratorie con cefalosporine di terza generazione. Farmacia e Terapia 10 (1993) 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mangi, R., Peccerillo, K. M., Ryan, J., Berenson, C., Greco, T., Thornton, G., Andriole, V. T.: Cefoperazone versus ceftriaxone monotherapy of nosocomial pneumonia. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 15 (1992) 441–447.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gotfried, M. H., Killian, A. D., Servi, R. J., Danziger, L. H., Rodvold, K. A.: Iv cefuroxime plus oral clarithromycin or iv erythromycin for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalised patients. Clin. Drug Invest 14 (1997) 23–34.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Federal Statistical Office: Statistisches Jahrbuch 1997. Metzler-Poeschel, Stuttgart 1997, pp. 449.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Umweltmedizin und Krankenhaushygiene, Klinikum Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, D-79106, Freiburg

    E. S. Dietrich PD,  U. Frank & F. D. Daschner

  2. Abt. Medizinische Poliklinik, Klinikum der Philipps-Universität Marburg, Zentrum für Interne Medizine, Baldingerstr., D-35033, Marburg

    U. Joseph

  3. Abt. für Innere Medizin, Krankenhaus Hofheim/Taunus, D-65719, Hofheim

    F. Vogel

  4. Medizinische Abt., Universitäts-Krankenhaus Eppendorf, D-20246, Hamburg

    S. Howaldt

  5. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, D-79639, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany

    K. -H. Kullmann

Authors
  1. E. S. Dietrich PD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. U. Joseph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Vogel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Howaldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. -H. Kullmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. U. Frank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. F. D. Daschner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dietrich, E.S., Joseph, U., Vogel, F. et al. Cost-Effectiveness of ceftriaxone 1 g vs second-generation cephalosporins in the treatment of pneumonia in general medical wards in Germany. Infection 27, 148–154 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02560518

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02560518

Keywords

Search

Navigation