MP11-01 DAILY VERSUS POSTCOITAL ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS IN WOMEN WITH RECURRENT URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS: CHOICE OF ANTIBIOTIC FROM A COST-EFFECTIVENESS PERSPECTIVE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Cost Effectiveness II1 Apr 2014MP11-01 DAILY VERSUS POSTCOITAL ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS IN WOMEN WITH RECURRENT URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS: CHOICE OF ANTIBIOTIC FROM A COST-EFFECTIVENESS PERSPECTIVE Hin Yu Vincent Tu and Timothy Davies Hin Yu Vincent TuHin Yu Vincent Tu More articles by this author and Timothy DaviesTimothy Davies More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.416AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Increasing evidence suggests that daily or postcoital antibiotic prophylaxis are effective strategies in the management of women with recurrent urinary tract infections (UTI). The purpose of our study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of different antibiotics used for daily and postcoital prophylaxis. METHODS A decision analysis model was developed to estimate the costs of daily and postcoital antibiotic prophylaxis in the reduction of UTIs per patient year. Prophylaxis success was defined as less than one microbacterial recurrence per patient year (MRPY). Our model was populated using data obtained from the EAU review and the Cochrane Review (CR) on UTIs. Antibiotics used for daily prophylaxis included: trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, cephalexin and ciprofloxacin. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMZ) and ciprofloxacin were included as postcoital antibiotics. Costs were obtained from the Provincial Drug Benefit formulary. Univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the robustness of our model. RESULTS Postcoital antibiotic prophylaxis was more cost-effective than daily prophylaxis at reducing MRPY. When the frequency of sexual intercourse (FSI) was once per week, postcoital TMP-SMZ 40/200mg was the most cost-effective agent, reducing MRPY to less than one at a cost of $1.3 Canadian dollars per patient year (CAD/py). This was followed by postcoital ciprofloxacin 125mg at a cost of $15.2 CAD/py. The cost of daily cephalexin 125mg and daily nitrofurantoin 100mg was $22.5 CAD/py and $41.5 CAD/py respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that as the FSI increased beyond 1.4 times per week, postcoital TMP-SMZ remained the most cost-effective however postcoital ciprofloxacin became less cost-effective than daily cephalexin prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS In the management of recurrent UTIs, prophylactic postcoital antibiotics is the most cost-effective solution. Our study suggests that postcoital TMP-SMZ should be the initial antibiotic choice. This is followed by postcoital ciprofloxacin if the FSI is less than once per week, and daily cephalexin if the FSI is greater than twice per week. Decisions for antibiotic choice should also be made in conjunction with local resistance patterns and clinical judgement. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e95 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Hin Yu Vincent Tu More articles by this author Timothy Davies More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».