Skip to main content
Log in

Cost-effective choice of antimicrobial therapy for serious infections

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The authors evaluated the financial and health implications of treatment choices for three serious classes of infection: hospital-acquired pneumonia, intra-abdominal infection, and sepsis of unknown origin. Data were obtained from a systematic review of clinical literature and published data bases, by written questionnaire from a panel of infectious disease authorities, and from actual costs at a tertiary-care hospital. For pneumonia and sepsis, the third-generation cephalosporin evaluated (ceftizoxime) was found to be less expensive than other regimens, when costs of dose preparation and administration, monitoring, and toxicity were added to drug acquisition costs. The lowestcost regimen for intra-abdominal infection was metronidazole plus gentamicin. Modest differences in efficacy would easily outweigh differences in toxicity, however, and could justify the use of more expensive regimens (e.g., mezlocillin plus gentamicin for hospital-acquired pneumonia, and cefoxitin plus gentamicin for intra-abdominal infection). If all regimens are assumed to be equally efficacious, then the third-generation cephalosporin was both lowest in cost and, owing to its low toxicity, greatest in net health benefit.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dans PE, Charache P, Fahey M, Otter SE. Management of pneumonia in the prospective payment era. Arch Intern Med 1984;144:1392–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Moore RD, Smith CR, Lipsky JJ, Mellits ED, Lietman PS. Risk factors for nephrotoxicity in patients treated with aminoglycosides. Ann Intern Med 1984;100:352–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moore RD, Smith CR. Lietman PS. Risk factors for the development of auditory toxicity in patients receiving aminoglycosides. J Infect Dis 1984;149:23–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Idsoe O, Guthe T, Willcox RR, DeWeck AL. Nature and extent of penicillin side-reactions, with particular reference to fatalities from anaphylactic shock. Bull WHO 1968;38:159

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Tedesco FJ, Barton RW, Alpers DH. Clindamycin-associated colitis: a prospective study. Ann Intern Med 1974;81:429–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV, Elstein AS, et al. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954;10:101–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Glass GV, Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher 1976;5:3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Graybill JR, Marshall JW, Charache P, Craig KW, Melvin VB. Nosocomial pneumonia. Am Rev Res Dis 1975;108:1130–9

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bartlett JG: Bacteriological diagnosis of pulmonary infections. In: Sackner MA (ed.). Diagnostic techniques in pulmonary disease. Part II. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tobin MJ, Grenvik A. Nosocomial lung infection and its diagnosis. Crit Care Med 1984;12:191–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Washington JA II: The clinical microbiology laboratory: utilization and cost-effectiveness. Am J Med 1985;78(suppl 6B):8–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. DerSimonian R, Charette J, McPeek B, Mosteller F. Reporting on methods in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1982;306:1332–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Drusano GL, Warren JW, Saah AJ, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of cefoxitin versus clindamycin—aminoglycoside in mixed anaerobic—aerobic infections. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1982;154:715–20

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schentag JJ, Wels PB, Reitberg DP, Walczak P, Van Tyle JH, LaScola RJ. A randomized clinical trial of moxalactam alone versus tobramycin plus clindamycin in abdominal sepsis. Ann Surg 1983;198:35–41

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Harding GKM, Nicolle LE, Haase DA, et al. Prospective, randomized comparative trials in the therapy for intraabdominal and female genital tract infections. Rev Infect Dis 1984;6(suppl) S283–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith JA, Skidmore AG, Forward AD, Clarke AM, Sutherland E. Prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of metronidazole and tobramycin with clindamycin and tobramycin in the treatment of intraabdominal sepsis. Ann Surg 1980;192:213–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Canadian Metronidazole—Clindamycin Study Group. Prospective, randomized comparison of metronidazole and clindamycin, each with gentamicin, for the treatment of serious intra-abdominal infection. Surgery 1983;93:221–9

    Google Scholar 

  19. Solomkin JS, Lentnek AL. A randomized multicenter-trial of ceftizoxime vs tobramycin/clindamycin for intra-abdominal infection. ICAAC Abstracts 1984;957

  20. Stone HH, Geheber CE, Kolbe LD, Dunlop WE. Clinical comparison of cefotaxime versus the combination of gentamicin plus clindamycin in the treatment of peritonitis and similar polymicrobial soft-tissue surgical sepsis. Clin Ther 1981;4:(suppl A), 67–80

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tally FP, McGowan K, Kellum JM, Gorbach SL, O’Donnell TF. A randomized comparison of cefoxitin with or without amikacin and clindamycin plus amikacin in surgical sepsis. Ann Surg 1981;193:318–23

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Nichols RL, Smith JW, Klein DB, et al. Risk of infection after penetrating abdominal trauma. N Engl J Med 1984;311:1065–70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kreger BE, Craven DE, McCabe WR: Gram-negative bacteremia IV. Am J Med 1980;68:344–55

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital statistics of the United States, 1978. Life Tables: Volume II, Section 5. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 81-1104. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  25. Barnes BA, Laird NM: Calculation of costs and duration of survival in end stage renal disease treatment by cadaveric transplantation or maintenance hemodialysis. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC, 1982

  26. American Hospital Association. Hospital statistics, 1981 edition. Chicago: American Hospital Association, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  27. Eisenberg JM: New drugs and clinical economics: cost-effectiveness analysis in the assessment of pharmaceutical innovations. Rev Infect Dis 1984;6(suppl 4):5905–5908

    Google Scholar 

  28. McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG. Fallacy of the five-year survival in lung cancer. N Engl J Med 1978;299:1397–1401

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Conn RB, Aller RD, Lundberg GD. Identifying costs of medical care: an essential step in allocating resources. JAMA 1985;253:1586–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Supported by a grant from Smith Kline and French Laboratories and by the Harvard Community Health Plan Foundation through the Institute for Health Research, a joint program of the Harvard Community Health Plan and Harvard University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weinstein, M.C., Read, J.L., MacKay, D.N. et al. Cost-effective choice of antimicrobial therapy for serious infections. J Gen Intern Med 1, 351–363 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02596417

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02596417

Key words

Navigation