Gladen H E
University of California, San Francisco/Fresno, California.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1992 Jan;15(1):99-105. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(92)90063-y.
Spreadsheet computer software was used to compare the estimated global treatment costs of the third-generation cephalosporins, cefotaxime and ceftriaxone, in the management of pneumonia using treatment schedules taken from current studies. Included in the analysis were not only acquisition costs, but also costs that contribute to total expenses for a course of treatment, such as those of (a) preparation and administration (disposable supplies, nursing, and pharmacy time), (b) projected laboratory costs to monitor for hypoprothrombinemia, and (c) complication costs (diarrhea, superinfection, pseudocholelithiasis, and so on). The cost analysis was performed using United States trial-derived factors. Where published cost factors were not available, reasonable estimates were sought. Our analysis indicates that cefotaxime therapy may be less costly than ceftriaxone therapy in the dosage schedules used in these clinical studies and routine clinical practice.
利用电子表格计算机软件，采用当前研究中的治疗方案，比较第三代头孢菌素头孢噻肟和头孢曲松在治疗肺炎方面的全球预估治疗成本。分析内容不仅包括购置成本，还包括构成一个疗程总费用的其他成本，如：（a）配制和给药成本（一次性用品、护理和药房工作时间），（b）监测低凝血酶原血症的预估实验室成本，以及（c）并发症成本（腹泻、二重感染、假胆石症等）。成本分析采用源自美国试验的因素。在没有已发表成本因素的情况下，则寻求合理估算值。我们的分析表明，在这些临床研究和常规临床实践所采用的给药方案中，头孢噻肟治疗的成本可能低于头孢曲松治疗。
