Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost Effectiveness of Ciprofloxacin plus Metronidazole versus Imipenem-Cilastatin in the Treatment of Intra-Abdominal Infections

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of sequential intravenous (IV) to oral ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole (CIP/MTZ IV/PO) with that of IV ciprofloxacin plus IV metronidazole (CIP/MTZ IV) and IV imipenem-cilastatin (IMI IV) in patients with intra-abdominal infections.

Design and participants: Patients enrolled in a double-blind randomised clinical trial were eligible for inclusion into this cost-effectiveness analysis. Decision analysis was used to characterise the economic outcomes between groups and provide a structure upon which to base the sensitivity analyses. 1996 cost values were used throughout.

Setting: The economic perspective of the analysis was that of a hospital provider.

Main outcome measures and results: Among 446 economically evaluable patients, 176 could be switched from IV to oral administration. The 51 patients randomised to CIP/MTZ IV/PO who received active oral therapy had a success rate of 98%, mean duration of therapy of 9.1 days and mean cost of $US7678. There were 125 patients randomised to either CIP/MTZ IV or IMI IV who received oral placebo while continuing on active IV antibacterials; their success rate was 94%, mean duration of therapy was 10.1 days and mean cost was $US8774 (p = 0.029 vs CIP/MTZ IV/PO). Of the 270 patients who were unable to receive oral administration, 97 received IMI IV and had a success rate of 75%, mean duration of therapy of 13.8 days and a mean cost of $US12 418, and 173 received CIP/MTZ IV and had a success rate of 77%, mean duration of therapy of 13.4 days and mean cost of $US12 219 (p = 0.26 vs IMI IV).

Conclusions: In patients able to receive oral therapy, sequential IV to oral treatment with ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole was cost effective compared with full IV courses of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole or imipenem-cilastatin. In patients unable to receive oral therapy, no difference in mean cost was found between IV imipenem-cilastatin or IV ciprofloxacin plus IV metronidazole.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Solomkin JS, Reinhart HH, Dellinger EP, et al. Results of a randomized trial comparing sequential intravenous/oral treatment with ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole to imipenem/cilastatin for intra-abdominal infections. Ann Surg 1996; 223: 303–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nichols RL, Smith JW. Wound and intra-abdominal infections: microbiological considerations and approaches to treatment. Clin Infect Dis 1993; 16 Suppl. 4: S266-S272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Drusano GI, Warren WJ, Saah AJ, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of cefoxitin versus clindamycin-aminoglycoside in mixed aerobic-anaerobic infections. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1982; 154: 715–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Najem AZ, Kaminsli CR, Spiller CR, et al. Comparative study of parenteral pipericillin and cefoxitin in the treatment of surgical infections of the abdomen. Surgery 1983; 157: 423–5

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schentag JJ, Wells PB, Reitberg DP, et al. A randomized clinical trial of moxalactam alone versus tobramycin plus clindamycin in abdominal sepsis. Ann Surg 1983; 198: 35–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Walker AP, Nichols RL, Wilson RF, et al. Efficacy of a betalactamase inhibitor combination for serious intra-abdominal infections. Ann Surg 1993; 217: 115–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Solomkin JS, Fant WK, Rivera JO, et al. Randomized trial of imipenem-cilastatin versus gentamicin and clindamycin inmixed flora infections. Am J Med 1985; 78 Suppl. 6A: 85–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Solomkin JS, Dellinger EP, Christou NV, et al. Results of a multicenter trial comparing imipenem-cilastatin to tobramycin-clindamycin for intra-abdominal infections.Ann Surg 1990; 212: 581–91

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hackford AW, Talley FP, Reinhold RB, et al. Prospective study comparing imipenem-cilastatin with clindamycin and gentamicin for the treatment of serious surgical infections. Arch Surg 1988; 123: 322–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Uhari M, Seppanen J, Heikinen E. Imipenem-cilastatin versus tobramycin and metronidazole for appendicitis-related infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1992; 11: 445–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ho JL, Barza M. Role of aminoglycoside antibiotics in the treatment of intra-abdominal infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 31: 485–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Whiting JI, Cheng N, Chow AW. Interactions of ciprofloxacin with clindamycin, metronidazole, cefoxitin, cefotaxime, and mezlocillin against gram-positive and gram-negative anaerobic bacteria. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 31: 1379–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Brook I. In vivo efficacies of quinolones and clindamycin for treatment of infections with Bacteroides fragilis and/or Escherichia coli in mice: correlation with in vitro susceptibilities. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993; 37: 997–1000

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Friedrich LV, White RL, Kays MB, et al. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of treatment of penetrating abdominal trauma. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992; 49: 590–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gorbach SL. Treatment of intra-abdominal infections. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993; 31 Suppl. 4: 67–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. DiPiro JT. Considerations for therapy of mixed infections: focus on intra-abdominal infections. Pharmacotherapy 1995; 15 (1 Pt 2): 15S-21S

    Google Scholar 

  17. Eisenberg JM, Koffer H, Glick HA, et al. What is the cost of nephrotoxicity associated with aminoglycosides? Ann Intern Med 1987; 107: 900–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Paladino JA, Sperry HE, Backes JM, et al. Clinical and economic evaluation of oral ciprofloxacin after an abbreviated course of intravenous antibiotics. Am J Med 1991; 91: 462–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lettieri JT, Rogge MC, Kaiser L, et al. Pharmacokinetic profiles of ciprofloxacin after single intravenous and oral doses. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1992; 36: 993–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sanders JR. Efficacy, safety, and potential economic benefits of oral ciprofloxacin in the treatment of infections. Rev Infect Dis 1988; 10: 528–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Höffken G, Lode H, Prinzing C, et al. Pharmacokinetics of ciprofloxacin after oral and parenteral administration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 27: 375–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grasela TH, Paladino JA, Schentag JJ, et al. Clinical and economic impact of oral ciprofloxacin as follow-up to parenteral antibiotics. DICP Ann Pharmacother 1991; 25: 857–62

    Google Scholar 

  23. Powers T, Bingham DH. Clinical and economic effect of ciprofloxacin as an alternative to injectable antimicrobial therapy. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990; 47: 1781–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Quintiliani R, Cooper BW, Briceland LL, et al. Economic impact of streamlining antibiotic administration. Am J Med 1987; 82 Suppl. 4A: 391–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Paladino JA, Fell RE. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of cefmenoxime dual individualization in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. Ann Pharmacother 1994; 28: 384–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Karlsson G, Johannesson, M. The decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9: 113–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Udvarhelyi S, Colditz GA. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis in the medical literature. Ann Intern Med 1992; 116: 238–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith CF, Amen RJ. Comparison of seven methods of preparing and administering small-volume injections. Am J Hosp Pharm 1988; 45: 1896–901

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Foran RM, Brett JL, Wulf PH. Evaluating the cost impact of intravenous antibiotic dosing frequencies. DICP Ann Pharmacother 1991; 25: 546–52

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Tanner DJ. Cost containment of reconstituted parenteral antibiotics: personnel and supply costs associated with preparation, dispensing, and administration. Rev Infect Dis 1984; 6 Suppl. 4: S924-S937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hatoum HT. Microcost analysis of inpatient dispensing and administration of oral solids. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990; 47: 800–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. The American Hospital Association. Hospital statistics: emerging trends in hospitals. Chicago (IL): American Hospital Association, 1995–96: 7

    Google Scholar 

  33. McKinnon PS, Paladino JA, Grayson ML, et al. Cost-effectiveness comparison of ampicillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in diabetic patients. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24: 57–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. de Lissovoy G, Elixhauser A, Luce BR, et al. Cost analysis of imipenem-cilastatin versus clindamycin with tobramycin in the treatment of acute intra-abdominal infection. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4: 203–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Paladino JA. Comparison of cefepime and ceftazidime using decision analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 5: 505–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Thomas N. The role of pharmacoeconomics in disease management. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 Suppl. 1: 9–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rifenburg RP, Paladino JA, Hanson SC, et al. Benchmark analysis of strategies hospitals use to control antimicrobial expenditures. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 1996; 53: 2054–62

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Schentag JJ, Paladino JA, Birmingham MC, et al. Use of benchmarking techniques to justify the evolution of antibiotic management programs in healthcare systems. J Pharm Technol 1995; 11: 203–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Bootman JL, Milne RJ. Costs, innovation and efficiency in anti-infective therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 Suppl. 1: 31–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Geroulanos LO, Stern A, Christen D, et al. Antimicrobial management of postoperative infections in abdominal surgery: single or combination regimens? Clin Ther 1990; 12SB: 34–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Poenaru D, DeSantis M, Christou NV. Imipenem versus tobramycin: antianaerobe antibiotic therapy in intra-abdominal infections. Can J Surg 1990; 33: 415–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Gonzenbach HR, Simmen HP, Angwerd R. Imipenem (N-Fthienemycin) versus netilmicin plus clindamycin. Ann Surg 1987; 205: 271–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Benfield P, Chrisp P. Imipenem/cilastatin: a pharmacoeconomic appraisal of its use in intra-abdominal infections. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1: 443–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Jhee SS, Gill MA, Yellin AE, et al. Pharmacoeconomics of piperacillin/tazobactam and imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infections. Clin Ther 1995; 17: 126–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Balfour JA, Bryson HM, Brogden RN. Imipenem/cilastatin: an update of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of serious infections. Drugs 1996; 51: 99–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Jensen KM, Paladino JA. Cost-effectiveness of abbreviating the duration of intravenous antibacterial therapy with oral fluoroquinolones. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11: 64–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Eisenberg JM. Clinical economics. A guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 1989; 262: 2879–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Detsky AS, Naglie IG. Aclinician’s guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 147–54

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11: 159–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Bulpitt CJ, Fletcher AE. Measuring costs and financial benefits in randomized controlled trials. Am Heart J 1990; 119: 766–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Kolassa M, Smith MC, Banahan BF, et al. The effects of acquisition cost and budget-based compensation on the attitudes of pharmacy directors toward the adoption of a cost-effective new drug. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 223–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Pharmacokinetics Laboratory, Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital, 1540 Maple Road, Buffalo, New York, 14221, USA

    Daniel J. Walters &  Joseph A. Paladino

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

    Joseph S. Solomkin

Authors
  1. Daniel J. Walters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph S. Solomkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph A. Paladino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph A. Paladino.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walters, D.J., Solomkin, J.S. & Paladino, J.A. Cost Effectiveness of Ciprofloxacin plus Metronidazole versus Imipenem-Cilastatin in the Treatment of Intra-Abdominal Infections. Pharmacoeconomics 16, 551–561 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199916050-00011

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199916050-00011

Keywords

Search

Navigation