在医院获得性肺炎(HABP)或与机械通风有关的肺炎(VABP)中,ceftolozan /tazobactam对meropenem的成本效益分析。

IF 0.4 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Francesco Saverio Mennini, Martina Paoletti, Chiara Bini, Andrea Marcellusi, Marco Falcone, Massimo Andreoni
{"title":"在医院获得性肺炎(HABP)或与机械通风有关的肺炎(VABP)中,ceftolozan /tazobactam对meropenem的成本效益分析。","authors":"Francesco Saverio Mennini, Martina Paoletti, Chiara Bini, Andrea Marcellusi, Marco Falcone, Massimo Andreoni","doi":"10.33393/grhta.2022.2287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cost-utility analysis of ceftolozane/tazobactam vs meropenem in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VABP) Objective: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem for the treatment of patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VABP) from the Italian National Health Service (NHS) and social perspective. Method: A decision tree and a Markov model were developed in order to forecast long-term and short-term disease effects respectively. A hypothetical target population of 1,000 HABP/VABP patients was followed for a lifetime time horizon. In the short-term decision tree, two different settings were developed in order to evaluate the value of empirical therapy compared with the start of treatment after confirmation of the antibiogram. Treated and cured patients enter the long-term Markov model following the mortality of the general population. Direct and indirect costs were considered accordingly with the analysis perspective. Results: The analysis showed that ceftolozane/tazobactam, in both treatment settings (empirical and confirmed), may be a cost-effective option compared to meropenem from the NHS and social perspective (ICER equal to € 1,913 and € 2,203 in the empirical treatment setting and € 6,163 and € 6,597 in the confirmed treatment setting for NHS and social perspective respectively). Conclusions: Introduction of ceftolozane/tazobactam within the Italian healthcare context can represent a valid therapeutic solution both from an economic and an efficacy profile point of view.","PeriodicalId":12627,"journal":{"name":"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/41/34/grhta-9-45.PMC9768596.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analisi di costo-utilità di ceftolozano/tazobactam rispetto a meropenem in pazienti con polmonite acquisita in ospedale (HABP) o polmonite associata a ventilazione meccanica (VABP).\",\"authors\":\"Francesco Saverio Mennini, Martina Paoletti, Chiara Bini, Andrea Marcellusi, Marco Falcone, Massimo Andreoni\",\"doi\":\"10.33393/grhta.2022.2287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Cost-utility analysis of ceftolozane/tazobactam vs meropenem in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VABP) Objective: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem for the treatment of patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VABP) from the Italian National Health Service (NHS) and social perspective. Method: A decision tree and a Markov model were developed in order to forecast long-term and short-term disease effects respectively. A hypothetical target population of 1,000 HABP/VABP patients was followed for a lifetime time horizon. In the short-term decision tree, two different settings were developed in order to evaluate the value of empirical therapy compared with the start of treatment after confirmation of the antibiogram. Treated and cured patients enter the long-term Markov model following the mortality of the general population. Direct and indirect costs were considered accordingly with the analysis perspective. Results: The analysis showed that ceftolozane/tazobactam, in both treatment settings (empirical and confirmed), may be a cost-effective option compared to meropenem from the NHS and social perspective (ICER equal to € 1,913 and € 2,203 in the empirical treatment setting and € 6,163 and € 6,597 in the confirmed treatment setting for NHS and social perspective respectively). Conclusions: Introduction of ceftolozane/tazobactam within the Italian healthcare context can represent a valid therapeutic solution both from an economic and an efficacy profile point of view.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12627,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/41/34/grhta-9-45.PMC9768596.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2022.2287\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33393/grhta.2022.2287","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Analisi di costo-utilità di ceftolozano/tazobactam rispetto a meropenem in pazienti con polmonite acquisita in ospedale (HABP) o polmonite associata a ventilazione meccanica (VABP).

Analisi di costo-utilità di ceftolozano/tazobactam rispetto a meropenem in pazienti con polmonite acquisita in ospedale (HABP) o polmonite associata a ventilazione meccanica (VABP).

Analisi di costo-utilità di ceftolozano/tazobactam rispetto a meropenem in pazienti con polmonite acquisita in ospedale (HABP) o polmonite associata a ventilazione meccanica (VABP).

Analisi di costo-utilità di ceftolozano/tazobactam rispetto a meropenem in pazienti con polmonite acquisita in ospedale (HABP) o polmonite associata a ventilazione meccanica (VABP).
Cost-utility analysis of ceftolozane/tazobactam vs meropenem in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VABP) Objective: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem for the treatment of patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VABP) from the Italian National Health Service (NHS) and social perspective. Method: A decision tree and a Markov model were developed in order to forecast long-term and short-term disease effects respectively. A hypothetical target population of 1,000 HABP/VABP patients was followed for a lifetime time horizon. In the short-term decision tree, two different settings were developed in order to evaluate the value of empirical therapy compared with the start of treatment after confirmation of the antibiogram. Treated and cured patients enter the long-term Markov model following the mortality of the general population. Direct and indirect costs were considered accordingly with the analysis perspective. Results: The analysis showed that ceftolozane/tazobactam, in both treatment settings (empirical and confirmed), may be a cost-effective option compared to meropenem from the NHS and social perspective (ICER equal to € 1,913 and € 2,203 in the empirical treatment setting and € 6,163 and € 6,597 in the confirmed treatment setting for NHS and social perspective respectively). Conclusions: Introduction of ceftolozane/tazobactam within the Italian healthcare context can represent a valid therapeutic solution both from an economic and an efficacy profile point of view.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment
Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global & Regional Health Technology Assessment (GRHTA) is a peer-reviewed, open access journal which aims to promote health technology assessment and economic evaluation, enabling choices among alternative therapeutical paths or procedures with different clinical and economic outcomes. GRHTA is a unique journal having three different editorial boards who focus on their respective geographical expertise.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信