METHODS: Collation and review of existing estimates of IDU prevalence and HIV prevalence from published and unpublished documents for the period 1998-2003. The strength of evidence for the information was assessed based on the source and type of study.
RESULTS: Estimates of IDU prevalence were available for 130 countries. The number of IDU worldwide was estimated as approximately 13.2 million. Over ten million (78%) live in developing and transitional countries (Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 3.1 million; South and South-east Asia, 3.3 million; East-Asia and Pacific, 2.3 million). Estimates of HIV prevalence were available for 78 countries. HIV prevalence among IDU of over 20% was reported for at least one site in 25 countries and territories: Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Serbia and Montenegro, Spain, Libya, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Viet Nam, China, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Puerto Rico, USA and Canada.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings update previous assessments of the number of countries with IDU and HIV-infected IDU, and the previous quantitative global estimates of the prevalence of IDU. However, gaps remain in the information and the strength of the evidence often was weak.
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.