• 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

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

Impact of glycopeptide therapy after hospital discharge on inpatient costs: a comparison of teicoplanin and vancomycin.

作者信息

Davey P G, South R, Malek M

机构信息

Pharmacoeconomics Research Centre, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK.

出版信息

J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996 Mar;37(3):623-33. doi: 10.1093/jac/37.3.623.

DOI:10.1093/jac/37.3.623
PMID:9182120
Abstract

Data were collected prospectively from 59 patients receiving vancomycin and 20 patients receiving teicoplanin. The mean daily drug cost was 52.40 pounds for teicoplanin and 31.13 pounds for vancomycin; the 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for the difference in mean drug costs varied between 14.40 pounds and 28.10 pounds in favour of vancomycin. Use of a loading dose of teicoplanin significantly increased mean daily drug costs if the duration of treatment was less than 10 days. Costs of preparation, administration and monitoring were consistently higher for vancomycin than for teicoplanin and inclusion of these costs reduced the difference in mean daily costs to 13.01 pounds (95% CI 6.10 to 19.90 pounds). In Dundee 11 of 20 patients who received teicoplanin had received some of their treatment after discharge from the hospital and a survey of UK hospitals confirmed that teicoplanin treatment after discharge is being used in a wide range of conditions. The median proportion of teicoplanin treatment in Dundee given after discharge was 28.4% for each patient who received the drug: the median proportion of non-inpatient therapy was 50% per patient of those who received any teicoplanin treatment after discharge. Assuming that teicoplanin costs 20 pounds per day more than vancomycin, use of teicoplanin implies an investment of 70.42 pounds to gain one hospital day through earlier discharge of patients receiving teicoplanin.

摘要

前瞻性收集了59例接受万古霉素治疗的患者和20例接受替考拉宁治疗的患者的数据。替考拉宁的日均药物费用为52.40英镑,万古霉素为31.13英镑;平均药物费用差异的95%置信区间(CI)在14.40英镑至28.10英镑之间,有利于万古霉素。如果治疗持续时间少于10天,使用替考拉宁的负荷剂量会显著增加日均药物费用。万古霉素的配制、给药和监测成本始终高于替考拉宁,将这些成本纳入计算后,日均成本差异降至13.01英镑(95%CI 6.10至19.90英镑)。在邓迪,20例接受替考拉宁治疗的患者中有11例在出院后接受了部分治疗,对英国医院的一项调查证实,出院后使用替考拉宁治疗的情况广泛存在。在邓迪,接受替考拉宁治疗的患者出院后接受治疗的中位比例为每位患者28.4%:出院后接受任何替考拉宁治疗的患者中,非住院治疗的中位比例为每位患者50%。假设替考拉宁每天的费用比万古霉素高20英镑,使用替考拉宁可通过使接受替考拉宁治疗的患者更早出院,意味着投资70.42英镑来多获得一天住院时间。

相似文献

1
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.
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
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
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.
5
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.
6
Are glycopeptides still appropriate and convenient for empiric use?糖肽类药物用于经验性治疗仍然合适且方便吗?
J Chemother. 2008 Oct;20(5):531-41. doi: 10.1179/joc.2008.20.5.531.
7
[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.
8
[The comparative costs of vancomycin treatment versus teicoplanin in osteoarticular infection caused by methicillin-resistant staphylococci].[万古霉素与替考拉宁治疗耐甲氧西林葡萄球菌引起的骨关节炎感染的成本比较]
Pathol Biol (Paris). 2001 Sep;49(7):587-96. doi: 10.1016/s0369-8114(01)00203-6.
9
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.
10
Pharmacoeconomics of linezolid.利奈唑胺的药物经济学
Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2008 Apr;9(6):987-1000. doi: 10.1517/14656566.9.6.987.

引用本文的文献

1
Soaking in Povidone-Iodine, Chlorhexidine, Teicoplanin, Vancomycin, and Saline Solution Differentially Alters Porcine Flexor Tendon Size and Biomechanical Properties.
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2025 May 21;7(4):101168. doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2025.101168. eCollection 2025 Aug.
2
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.
3
Trends in orthopaedic antimicrobial prophylaxis in the UK between 2005 and 2011.2005年至2011年间英国骨科抗菌预防的趋势。
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2013 Oct;95(7):495-502. doi: 10.1308/003588413X13629960047038.
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.
5
Management of serious staphylococcal infections in the outpatient setting.门诊环境中严重葡萄球菌感染的管理。
Drugs. 1997;54 Suppl 6:21-8. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199700546-00006.
6
Intravenous antimicrobial therapy in the community: underused, inadequately resourced, or irrelevant to health care in Britain?社区中的静脉抗菌治疗:在英国是否未得到充分利用、资源不足或与医疗保健无关?
BMJ. 1996 Dec 14;313(7071):1541-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7071.1541.