Martin Monique, Moore Lee, Quilici Sibilia, Decramer Marc, Simoens Steven
i3 Innovus, Uxbridge, UK.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Mar;24(3):737-51. doi: 10.1185/030079908X273336. Epub 2008 Jan 28.
This article assesses the cost-effectiveness of outpatient antimicrobial treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) taking into account resistance in Belgium.
Our decision analytic model focused on mild to moderate CAP, but did not consider severe CAP. Treatment pathways reflected empirical treatment initiated in the absence of data on CAP aetiology. First-line treatment consisted of moxifloxacin, co-amoxiclav, cefuroxime or clarithromycin. If first-line treatment was unsuccessful, patients were either hospitalised or second-line treatment with a different antimicrobial was initiated. Clinical failure rates were obtained from the published literature or expert opinion. Costs were calculated using published sources from the third-party payer perspective.
Effectiveness measures included first-line clinical failure avoided, second-line treatment avoided, hospitalisation avoided and death avoided. Healthcare costs were included, but costs of productivity loss were not considered.
Costs of treating a CAP episode amounted to 144E with moxifloxacin/co-amoxiclav; 222E with co-amoxiclav/clarithromycin; 211E with cefuroxime/moxifloxacin; and 193E with clarithromycin/moxifloxacin. The rate of first-line failure was 5%, 16%, 19% and 18% for these four treatment strategies, respectively. The rate of second-line treatment amounted to 4%, 13%, 16% and 15%, respectively. The hospitalisation rate was 1%, 4%, 4% and 4%, respectively. The death rate was 0.01%, 0.04%, 0.03% and 0.03%, respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the dominance of moxifloxacin/co-amoxiclav in nearly all scenarios.
First-line treatment of CAP patients with moxifloxacin followed by co-amoxiclav or hospitalisation if required was more effective and less costly as compared with first-line treatment with co-amoxiclav, cefuroxime or clarithromycin.
本文考虑到比利时的耐药情况,评估社区获得性肺炎(CAP)门诊抗菌治疗的成本效益。
我们的决策分析模型聚焦于轻至中度CAP,但未考虑重度CAP。治疗路径反映了在缺乏CAP病因数据时启动的经验性治疗。一线治疗包括莫西沙星、阿莫西林克拉维酸、头孢呋辛或克拉霉素。如果一线治疗未成功,患者要么住院,要么启动不同抗菌药物的二线治疗。临床失败率来自已发表的文献或专家意见。成本从第三方支付方的角度使用已发表的资料进行计算。
有效性指标包括避免一线临床失败、避免二线治疗、避免住院和避免死亡。纳入了医疗保健成本,但未考虑生产力损失成本。
使用莫西沙星/阿莫西林克拉维酸治疗一次CAP发作的成本为144欧元;使用阿莫西林克拉维酸/克拉霉素为222欧元;使用头孢呋辛/莫西沙星为211欧元;使用克拉霉素/莫西沙星为193欧元。这四种治疗策略的一线失败率分别为5%、16%、19%和18%。二线治疗率分别为4%、13%、16%和15%。住院率分别为1%、4%、4%和4%。死亡率分别为0.01%、0.04%、0.03%和0.03%。敏感性分析支持在几乎所有情况下莫西沙星/阿莫西林克拉维酸的优势。
与使用阿莫西林克拉维酸、头孢呋辛或克拉霉素进行一线治疗相比,CAP患者首先使用莫西沙星治疗,必要时再使用阿莫西林克拉维酸或住院治疗,更有效且成本更低。