Suppr超能文献

肌内注射头孢曲松与口服头孢克肟治疗青少年淋菌性宫颈炎的成本效益决策分析。

Cost-effectiveness decision analysis of intramuscular ceftriaxone versus oral cefixime in adolescents with gonococcal cervicitis.

作者信息

Friedland L R, Kulick R M, Biro F M, Patterson A

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, OH, USA.

出版信息

Ann Emerg Med. 1996 Mar;27(3):299-304. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(96)70263-9.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We compared the cost-effectiveness of two single-dose treatment strategies for adolescents with uncomplicated Neisseria gonorrhoeae cervicitis.

METHODS

We used a cost-effectiveness decision- analysis model to compare the two methods: the standard, ceftriaxone 125 mg given by IM injection; and an alternative, cefixime 400 mg given orally. The effect of the costs associated with the risk of accidental needlestick during IM administration was also evaluated. Key baseline assumptions (with ranges, when tested) were from the literature or costs to our hospital. These included ceftriaxone, $8.60 per dose; cefixime, $4.67 per dose; ceftriaxone efficacy, 98% (range, 94.9% to 100%); cefixime efficacy, 97% (94.1% to 100%); and a 15% probability of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) related to failed treatment. We included costs for PID necessitating hospitalization, disseminated gonococcal infection, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy. Assumptions related to accidental needlestick included the rate of needlesticks with the disposable syringe, 6.9 per 100,000 injections (range, 0 to 69); cost of accidental needlestick to hospital; risk of HIV seroconversion after needlestick exposure to HIV-infected blood, .36% (range, 0% to .86%); rate of HIV infection in 15- to 19-year-olds attending sexually transmitted diseases clinics, .4% (range, 0 to 5); and lifetime treatment costs for a person with HIV.

RESULTS

At baseline values the model favored ceftriaxone ($45 per patient) or cefixime ($59 per patient). However, over the range of efficacy of both drugs, two-way sensitivity analysis revealed no consistent cost advantage for either drug. The model was also insensitive to the economic effects associated with the risk of accidental needlestick during IM injection.

CONCLUSION

over the range of efficacy by the 95% confidence intervals of both drugs, our analysis demonstrated no clear cost advantage for either. The economic effects of accidental needlestick do not change this conclusion. Compared with the IM alternative, oral cefixime is painless to the patient and simpler for the practitioner to administer. Oral cefixime also eliminates the psychologic effects associated with needlesticks in health care workers. For these reasons, we favor the use of oral cefixime for uncomplicated gonococcal cervicitis in adolescents.

摘要

研究目的

我们比较了两种单剂量治疗策略对患有单纯性淋病奈瑟菌宫颈炎青少年的成本效益。

方法

我们使用成本效益决策分析模型来比较两种方法:标准方法为肌内注射头孢曲松125毫克;另一种方法为口服头孢克肟400毫克。还评估了与肌内注射期间意外针刺风险相关的成本影响。关键基线假设(测试时有范围)来自文献或我们医院的成本。这些包括头孢曲松,每剂8.60美元;头孢克肟,每剂4.67美元;头孢曲松疗效,98%(范围94.9%至100%);头孢克肟疗效,97%(94.1%至100%);以及与治疗失败相关的盆腔炎(PID)概率为15%。我们纳入了因PID需要住院、播散性淋球菌感染、不孕和异位妊娠的成本。与意外针刺相关的假设包括一次性注射器的针刺率,每100000次注射6.9次(范围0至69);医院意外针刺的成本;针刺暴露于艾滋病毒感染血液后艾滋病毒血清转化的风险,0.36%(范围0%至0.86%);15至19岁就诊于性传播疾病诊所的青少年艾滋病毒感染率,0.4%(范围0至5);以及艾滋病毒感染者的终身治疗成本。

结果

在基线值时,模型倾向于头孢曲松(每位患者45美元)或头孢克肟(每位患者59美元)。然而,在两种药物的疗效范围内,双向敏感性分析显示两种药物均无一致的成本优势。该模型对与肌内注射期间意外针刺风险相关的经济影响也不敏感。

结论

在两种药物95%置信区间的疗效范围内,我们的分析表明两种药物均无明显的成本优势。意外针刺的经济影响并未改变这一结论。与肌内注射方法相比,口服头孢克肟对患者无痛,医生给药更简便。口服头孢克肟还消除了医护人员与针刺相关的心理影响。出于这些原因,我们倾向于使用口服头孢克肟治疗青少年单纯性淋菌性宫颈炎。

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