• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Clinical practice and costs of treating catheter-related infections with teicoplanin or vancomycin.替考拉宁或万古霉素治疗导管相关感染的临床实践与成本
Pharm Pract (Granada). 2006 Apr;4(2):68-73.
2
Health economics assessment study of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in Gram-positive infections.替考拉宁与万古霉素治疗革兰氏阳性菌感染的卫生经济学评估研究
Rev Esp Quimioter. 2006 Mar;19(1):65-75.
3
Teicoplanin. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in the treatment of gram-positive infections.替考拉宁:对其用于治疗革兰氏阳性菌感染的药物经济学评价
Pharmacoeconomics. 1995 Apr;7(4):357-74. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199507040-00009.
4
Comparative pharmacoeconomic study of vancomycin and teicoplanin in intensive care patients.万古霉素与替考拉宁在重症监护患者中的药物经济学比较研究。
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000 Jun;15(1):65-71. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(00)00123-0.
5
Vancomycin vs teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections: a pharmacoeconomic analysis in a Turkish University Hospital.万古霉素与替考拉宁治疗革兰氏阳性菌感染的对比:土耳其某大学医院的药物经济学分析
Pharm World Sci. 2008 Dec;30(6):916-23. doi: 10.1007/s11096-008-9251-2. Epub 2008 Sep 21.
6
Randomized prospective study comparing cost-effectiveness of teicoplanin and vancomycin as second-line empiric therapy for infection in neutropenic patients.比较替考拉宁和万古霉素作为中性粒细胞减少患者感染二线经验性治疗的成本效益的随机前瞻性研究。
Haematologica. 1999 Mar;84(3):231-6.
7
Impact of glycopeptide therapy after hospital discharge on inpatient costs: a comparison of teicoplanin and vancomycin.出院后糖肽类药物治疗对住院费用的影响:替考拉宁与万古霉素的比较
J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996 Mar;37(3):623-33. doi: 10.1093/jac/37.3.623.
8
Teicoplanin vs vancomycin: cost-effectiveness comparisons.替考拉宁与万古霉素:成本效益比较
Hosp Formul. 1993 Jan;28 Suppl 1:28-32.
9
Current treatment of gram-positive infections: focus on efficacy, safety, and cost minimalization analysis of teicoplanin.
Hosp Formul. 1992 Dec;27(12):1199-200, 1203-4, 1207-10.
10
[Vancomycin and teicoplanin use as antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery: pharmacoeconomic study].[万古霉素和替考拉宁在心脏手术中用作抗生素预防:药物经济学研究]
Med Clin (Barc). 2000;114 Suppl 3:54-61.

引用本文的文献

1
Comprehensive Overview of Antibacterial Drugs and Natural Antibacterial Compounds Found in Food Plants.食品植物中发现的抗菌药物和天然抗菌化合物综述
Antibiotics (Basel). 2025 Feb 11;14(2):185. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics14020185.
2
Factors affecting the cost effectiveness of antibiotics.影响抗生素成本效益的因素。
Chemother Res Pract. 2011;2011:249867. doi: 10.1155/2011/249867. Epub 2011 Feb 6.
3
Health economic assessment: a methodological primer.健康经济评估:方法学入门。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009 Dec;6(12):2950-66. doi: 10.3390/ijerph6122950. Epub 2009 Nov 27.
4
Vancomycin vs teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections: a pharmacoeconomic analysis in a Turkish University Hospital.万古霉素与替考拉宁治疗革兰氏阳性菌感染的对比:土耳其某大学医院的药物经济学分析
Pharm World Sci. 2008 Dec;30(6):916-23. doi: 10.1007/s11096-008-9251-2. Epub 2008 Sep 21.

本文引用的文献

1
The Delphi technique: myths and realities.德尔菲技术:神话与现实。
J Adv Nurs. 2003 Feb;41(4):376-82. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x.
2
Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique.德尔菲调查技术的研究指南。
J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15.
3
Comparative pharmacoeconomic study of vancomycin and teicoplanin in intensive care patients.万古霉素与替考拉宁在重症监护患者中的药物经济学比较研究。
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000 Jun;15(1):65-71. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(00)00123-0.
4
Comparative safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin.替考拉宁与万古霉素的安全性比较。
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1998 May;10(2):143-52. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(98)00025-9.
5
A closer look at vancomycin, teicoplanin, and antimicrobial resistance.深入探究万古霉素、替考拉宁与抗菌药物耐药性
J Chemother. 1997 Oct;9(5):311-31; discussion 332-5. doi: 10.1179/joc.1997.9.5.311.
6
Impact of glycopeptide therapy after hospital discharge on inpatient costs: a comparison of teicoplanin and vancomycin.出院后糖肽类药物治疗对住院费用的影响:替考拉宁与万古霉素的比较
J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996 Mar;37(3):623-33. doi: 10.1093/jac/37.3.623.
7
The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin.替考拉宁与万古霉素的疗效及安全性比较
J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996 Feb;37(2):209-22. doi: 10.1093/jac/37.2.209.
8
Cost of gentamicin assays carried out by microbiology laboratories.微生物实验室进行庆大霉素检测的成本。
J Clin Pathol. 1993 Oct;46(10):890-5. doi: 10.1136/jcp.46.10.890.
9
The Delphi technique: a worthwhile research approach for nursing?德尔菲法:一种对护理工作有价值的研究方法?
J Adv Nurs. 1994 Jun;19(6):1221-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01207.x.
10
The committee meeting alternative. Using the Delphi technique.委员会会议备选方案。采用德尔菲技术。
J Nurs Adm. 1990 Jul-Aug;20(7-8):30-6.

替考拉宁或万古霉素治疗导管相关感染的临床实践与成本

Clinical practice and costs of treating catheter-related infections with teicoplanin or vancomycin.

作者信息

Simoens Steven, De Corte Nik, Laekeman Gert

机构信息

Research Centre for Pharmaceutical Care and Pharmaco-economics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven , Belgium.

Sanofi-Aventis, Brussels, Belgium .

出版信息

Pharm Pract (Granada). 2006 Apr;4(2):68-73.

PMID:25247002
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4166146/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To elicit actual clinical practice of treating intensive care unit patients with catheter-related infections with teicoplanin or vancomycin from a hospital perspective. As clinical trials have demonstrated similar efficacy of these glycopeptides, a cost-minimisation analysis was also carried out.

METHODS

The Delphi survey technique was used to gather the opinion of nine physicians regarding resource utilization associated with teicoplanin and vancomycin. Treatment costs considered were costs of drug acquisition, costs of material and nursing time required for drug preparation and administration, and costs of laboratory tests.

RESULTS

Physicians tend to administer higher loading doses of teicoplanin than recommended in the drug information leaflet. Even though evidence of the effectiveness of vancomycin is mainly derived from trials using multiple-daily administration schedules, five physicians administered it on a once-daily basis. Mean treatment costs amounted to 1,272€ with teicoplanin and 1,041€ with vancomycin. Higher treatment costs with teicoplanin arose from more elevated drug acquisition costs (1,076€ versus 795€). Treatment with vancomycin was associated with higher costs of laboratory tests as a result of more frequent monitoring of serum concentrations (217€ versus 150€).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of clinical practice and costs indicated that the resource utilisation advantages from fewer laboratory tests with teicoplanin partially offset higher drug acquisition costs. In addition to efficacy and costs, other factors such as route of administration, patient profile and adverse effects need to inform the choice between teicoplanin and vancomycin.

摘要

目的

从医院角度探讨替考拉宁或万古霉素治疗重症监护病房导管相关感染患者的实际临床实践。由于临床试验已证明这些糖肽类药物疗效相似,因此还进行了成本最小化分析。

方法

采用德尔菲调查技术收集9位医生关于替考拉宁和万古霉素资源利用情况的意见。所考虑的治疗成本包括药物采购成本、药物配制和给药所需的材料及护理时间成本,以及实验室检查成本。

结果

医生倾向于给予高于药品说明书推荐剂量的替考拉宁负荷剂量。尽管万古霉素有效性的证据主要来自每日多次给药方案的试验,但有5位医生采用每日一次给药。替考拉宁的平均治疗成本为1272欧元,万古霉素为1041欧元。替考拉宁治疗成本较高是由于药物采购成本更高(1076欧元对795欧元)。由于更频繁地监测血清浓度,万古霉素治疗的实验室检查成本更高(217欧元对150欧元)。

结论

对临床实践和成本的分析表明,替考拉宁较少的实验室检查所带来的资源利用优势部分抵消了较高的药物采购成本。除疗效和成本外,给药途径、患者情况及不良反应等其他因素也应纳入替考拉宁和万古霉素选择的考量。