Quenzer R W, Pettit K G, Arnold R J, Kaniecki D J
Division of General Medicine, University Hospital, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA.
Am J Manag Care. 1997 Jul;3(7):1027-36.
An interactive pharmacoeconomic model was designed to evaluate the effects of clinical response and adverse drug events on the comparative cost and cost-effectiveness of a relatively new antibiotic, clarithromycin, compared with those of six other antibiotics used to treat community-acquired lower respiratory tract infection. The cost and cost-effectiveness analyses were based don 12 randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials conducted between 1987 and 1992 in regionally distributed outpatient clinics in the United States. The trials enrolled a total of 2377 patients. Of the 2377, 1102 patients were treated for acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, 591 for pneumonia, and 201 for either of the two conditions. Safety data for one of the antibiotics was obtained from a trial of patients with sinusitis (N = 483). The antibiotics included in the analysis were amoxicillin/clavulanate, ampicillin, cefaclor, cefixime, cefuroxime, clarithromycin, and erythromycin. The main outcome measures were the costs of resources to achieve a clinical response, costs related to managing adverse drug events, and costs of antibiotic treatment from the perspective of managed care. The mean total cost per episode ranged from approximately $137 to $267. The drug acquisition cost typically contributed a small amount to the overall cost. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, in which complication-free cure was used as a proxy for patient satisfaction, the range of mean cost per complication-free cure varied from approximately $307 for clarithromycin to $612 for cefaclor. When ranked from most to least cost-effective, the order was as follows: clarithromycin, cefixime, amoxicillin/clavulanate, erythromycin, cefuroxime, ampicillin, and cefaclor. The costs associated with clinical management (including treatment failure) and managing adverse drug events significantly contribute to the total cost and cost-effectiveness of antibiotics in the outpatient setting. Cost-effectiveness analyses are valuable in analyzing the various costs associated with the treatment of lower respiratory tract infection (acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis or pneumonia) and may be useful tools for physicians managing patients, members of pharmacy and therapeutics committees developing formularies, and medical staff implementing practice guidelines.
设计了一个交互式药物经济学模型,以评估临床反应和药物不良事件对一种相对较新的抗生素克拉霉素与其他六种用于治疗社区获得性下呼吸道感染的抗生素相比的相对成本和成本效益的影响。成本和成本效益分析基于1987年至1992年在美国各地门诊诊所进行的12项随机、双盲、对照临床试验。这些试验共招募了2377名患者。在这2377名患者中,1102名患者接受了慢性支气管炎急性加重的治疗,591名患者接受了肺炎治疗,201名患者接受了这两种疾病之一的治疗。其中一种抗生素的安全性数据来自一项鼻窦炎患者试验(N = 483)。分析中包括的抗生素有阿莫西林/克拉维酸、氨苄西林头孢克洛、头孢克肟、头孢呋辛、克拉霉素和红霉素。主要结局指标是实现临床反应的资源成本、与处理药物不良事件相关的成本以及从管理式医疗角度看抗生素治疗的成本。每例的平均总成本约为137美元至267美元。药品采购成本通常在总成本中占比很小。在成本效益分析中,将无并发症治愈作为患者满意度的替代指标,每例无并发症治愈的平均成本范围从克拉霉素的约307美元到头孢克洛的612美元不等。从成本效益最高到最低排序如下:克拉霉素、头孢克肟、阿莫西林/克拉维酸、红霉素、头孢呋辛、氨苄西林和头孢克洛。与临床管理(包括治疗失败)和处理药物不良事件相关的成本对门诊环境中抗生素的总成本和成本效益有显著影响。成本效益分析在分析与下呼吸道感染(慢性支气管炎急性加重或肺炎)治疗相关的各种成本方面很有价值,对于管理患者的医生、制定处方集的药学与治疗学委员会成员以及实施实践指南的医务人员而言,可能是有用的工具。