METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using electronic databases, such as EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, NHS and CEA Registry from 2000 until 2017. The quality of each included study was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Statement checklist.
RESULTS: Of the 313 papers retrieved, five papers were included in this review after assessment for eligibility. The majority of the studies were cost-effectiveness studies, comparing ASP to standard care. Four included economic studies were conducted from the provider (hospital) perspective while the other study was from payer (National Health System) perspective. The cost included for economic analysis were as following: personnel costs, warded cost, medical costs, procedure costs and other costs.
CONCLUSIONS: All studies were generally well-conducted with relatively good quality of reporting. Implementing ASP in the hospital setting may be cost-effective. However, comprehensive cost-effectiveness data for ASP remain relatively scant, underlining the need for more prospective clinical and epidemiological studies to incorporate robust economic analyses into clinical decisions. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.
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.
METHODS: A prospective quasi experimental study was conducted by enrolling 450 patients from tertiary care hospital of Lahore, Pakistan, 225 patients in each, control and intervention, arm using non-random convenient sampling. The study parameters included antibiotic indication, choice, dose, frequency, duration and associated costs. This study is registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry # ChiCTR-OON-17013246.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: After educational intervention, in post-intervention arm, total compliance in terms of correct antibiotic choice, dose, frequency and duration increased from 1.3% to 12.4%. The rate of inappropriate antibiotic choice did not change significantly. After intervention only metronidazole utilization decreased (16%) significantly (p=0.011). Significant reductions were observed in mean duration of antibiotic prophylaxis (17%, p=0.003), average number of prescribed antibiotics (9.1%, p=0.014) and average antibiotic cost (25.7%, p=0.03), with reduction in mean hospitalization cost (p=0.003) and length of stay (p=0.023). Educational intervention was significantly associated (OR; 2.4, p=0.005) with appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis. The benefit of pharmacist intervention, mean antibiotic cost savings to mean cost of pharmacist time, was 4.8:1. Thus, the educational intervention resulted in significant reductions in the duration and average number of antibiotic use having considerable effect on therapy and hospitalization cost.
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.