METHODOLOGY: One hundred and ninety-one episodes of fever and neutropenia in 128 patients from October 1997 to December 1998 were included in a prospective, open-label, single-centre study. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group and evaluated as successes or failures according to defined criteria. Daily assessments were made on all patients and all adverse events recorded. Univariate and multivariate analysis of outcomes and a cost analysis were carried out.
RESULTS: There were 176 evaluable patient-episodes with 51.1% in the single-daily ceftriaxone-amikacin group and 48.9% in the ceftazidime-amikacin group. There were 50 positive blood cultures: 12 Gram-positive bacteria, 33 Gram-negative bacteria and five fungi. Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) accounted for 14% of total isolates. The overall success rate was 55.5% in the ceftriaxone group compared to 51.2% in the ceftazidime group (P = 0.56). Mean time to defervescence was 4.2 days in the single-daily group and 4.3 days in the thrice-daily group. There were nine infection-related deaths; five in the single-daily ceftriaxone group. The daily cost of the once-daily regime was 42 Malaysian Ringgit less than the thrice-daily regime. There was a low incidence of adverse effects in both groups, although ototoxicity was not evaluable.
CONCLUSIONS: The once-daily regime of ceftriaxone plus amikacin was as effective as the 'standard' combination of thrice-daily ceftazidime and amikacin with no significant adverse effects in either group. The convenience and substantial cost benefit of the once-daily regime will be particularly useful in developing countries with limited health resources and in centres with a low prevalence of P. aeruginosa.
CONCLUSION: Ex-prematurity and the presence of an underlying illness results in escalation of the direct treatment cost of RSV chest infection. Current guidelines for use of passive RSV immunization do not appear to be cost-effective if adopted for Malaysian infants.
METHODS: Patient demography, pre-operative visual acuity, intra-operative complications, post-operative complications and post-operative visual acuity were recorded for two hundred and forty seven of the 400 patients who underwent cataract surgery during a 2-week period. The cost of surgery, which included capital, staff and overhead, and patient care consumable costs were assessed prospectively in 8 randomly sampled patients over a 3-month period. Cost efficiency refers to cost per cataract surgery. Cost effectiveness refers to cost per successful cataract surgery. This is estimated by the ratio of cost efficiency to the proportion of successful cataract surgery. Successful surgery was defined as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of better than 6/12 at 3 months post-operatively.
RESULTS: Proportion of patients who had post-operative visual acuity of 6/12 or better was higher in phacoemulsification group (94%) than in the ECCE group (81%). Conventional extracapsular cataract surgery with intraocular lens implant costs RM3442 (USD 905.79) and phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implant costs RM4288 (USD 1128.42).
DISCUSSION: There was no significant difference in cost effectiveness between ECCE and phacoemulsification. The cost of cataract surgery in the MOH hospital was found to be high due to the high overhead costs.
OBJECTIVES: On this basis, a study was conducted in a district hospital to study the therapy outcomes of antibiotic regimens used in pediatric community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) management and to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CE) between IV ampicillin versus combination therapy of IV ampicillin and IV gentamicin.
METHOD: A prospective, randomized, controlled, single blind study was conducted in a pediatric ward in a 80-bed district hospital. Pediatric patients diagnosed with CAP aged 2 months to 5 years old were randomly and equally divided into two treatment arms: ampicillin versus ampicillin plus gentamicin. The dose of IV ampicillin used in this study was 100 mg/kg/day divided every 6 h and 5 mg/kg of IV gentamicin as a single daily dose. Both clinical and economic evaluations were carried out to compare both treatment arms.
RESULTS: With the inclusion and exclusion criteria, only 40 patients diagnosed with CAP were included in the study. The results showed that the two treatment arms were significantly different (P < 0.05) in terms of duration of patients on ampicillin, number of days of hospitalization and time to switch to oral therapy. A significant difference was noted between the two treatment modalities in terms of effectiveness and cost (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Overall, the endpoint of this study showed that the total cost per patient of ampicillin-treated group is cheaper than the total cost with the combination therapy (ampicillin plus gentamicin) and reduced unnecessary exposure to adverse effects or toxicities. Besides that, addition of gentamicin in the treatment modalities will only increase the cost of treatment without introducing any changes in the treatment outcome.