Evidence Hub

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of selected antibiotics in lower respiratory tract infection

Quenzer RW, Pettit KG, Arnold RJ, Kaniecki DJ

The American journal of managed care, 1997

2,377 participants

Abstract

An interactive pharmacoeconomic model was designed to evaluate the effects of clinical response and adverse drug events on the comparative cost and cost-effectiveness of a relatively new antibiotic, clarithromycin, compared with those of six other antibiotics used to treat community-acquired lower respiratory tract infection. The cost and cost-effectiveness analyses were based don 12 randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials conducted between 1987 and 1992 in regionally distributed outpatient clinics in the United States. The trials enrolled a total of 2377 patients. Of the 2377, 1102 patients were treated for acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis, 591 for pneumonia, and 201 for either of the two conditions. Safety data for one of the antibiotics was obtained from a trial of patients with sinusitis (N = 483). The antibiotics included in the analysis were amoxicillin/clavulanate, ampicillin, cefaclor, cefixime, cefuroxime, clarithromycin, and erythromycin. The main outcome measures were the costs of resources to achieve a clinical response, costs related to managing adverse drug events, and costs of antibiotic treatment from the perspective of managed care. The mean total cost per episode ranged from approximately $137 to $267. The drug acquisition cost typically contributed a small amount to the overall cost. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, in which complication-free cure was used as a proxy for patient satisfaction, the range of mean cost per…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 2,377 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free