Pharmacoeconomics of Ciprofloxacin plus Metronidazole vs. Piperacillin-Tazobactam for Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A series of 459 hospitalized adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections participated in a randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial. The present study was conducted to add a pharmacoeconomic analysis to the results. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the hospital provider was carried out. Decision analysis was used to illustrate outcomes and to provide a basis on which to conduct a sensitivity analysis. Cost-effectiveness ratios, representing the cost per expected successfully treated patient, were calculated to determine the most cost-effective alternative. RESULTS: Among 244 economically evaluable patients, enrolled from 34 centers in the U.S. and Canada, 131 patients received ciprofloxacin-metronidazole (75% clinical success rate), and 113 received piperacillin-tazobactam (65% clinical success rate; p = 0.06). Switch to oral antibiotics was possible for 81 patients who received ciprofloxacin-metronidazole (85% clinical success rate) and 67 piperacillin-tazobactam patients (70% clinical success rate; p = 0.027). The mean hospital cost was US$10,662 +/- 7,793 for patients in the ciprofloxacin-metronidazole group and $10,009 +/- 7,023 for patients in the piperacillin-tazobactam group (p = 0.492). Significantly lower costs were documented for patients who could be switched to oral antibiotics than for those continued on intravenous antibiotic orders ($8,684 +/- 4,120 vs. $12,945 +/- 10,204, respectively; p < 0.001). Patients with appendicitis had lower mean hospital costs than those with other infections ($7,169 +/- 3,705 vs. $12,097 +/- 8,342, respectively; p < 0.001). The cost-effectiveness ratios were $14,216:1 for patients in the ciprofloxacin-metronidazole group and $15,398:1 for patients in the piperacillin-tazobactam group. CONCLUSIONS: The mean hospital costs associated with ciprofloxacin-metronidazole were similar to those of piperacillin-tazobactam for the treatment of adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Lower costs were documented for patients able to be switched to oral antibiotics and for patients with appendicitis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".