Suppr超能文献

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.

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。

相似文献

3
Teicoplanin. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in the treatment of gram-positive infections.
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.
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.
Pharm World Sci. 2008 Dec;30(6):916-23. doi: 10.1007/s11096-008-9251-2. Epub 2008 Sep 21.
8
Teicoplanin vs vancomycin: cost-effectiveness comparisons.
Hosp Formul. 1993 Jan;28 Suppl 1:28-32.

引用本文的文献

1
Comprehensive Overview of Antibacterial Drugs and Natural Antibacterial Compounds Found in Food Plants.
Antibiotics (Basel). 2025 Feb 11;14(2):185. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics14020185.
2
Factors affecting the cost effectiveness of antibiotics.
Chemother Res Pract. 2011;2011:249867. doi: 10.1155/2011/249867. Epub 2011 Feb 6.
3
Health economic assessment: a methodological primer.
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.
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.
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.
J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15.
3
Comparative pharmacoeconomic study of vancomycin and teicoplanin in intensive care patients.
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.
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.
J Chemother. 1997 Oct;9(5):311-31; discussion 332-5. doi: 10.1179/joc.1997.9.5.311.
7
The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin.
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.
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?
J Adv Nurs. 1994 Jun;19(6):1221-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01207.x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验