ScholarLens Back to search
2012•Zhongguo yaofangRequires access

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Cefoperazone versus Compound Enzyme Inhibitor in the Treatment of Hospital Acquired Pneumonia

Bai Rong, Changqing Li, Ting Wang

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cefoperazone sodium and cefoperazone sulbactam in the treat-ment of hospital acquired pneumonia. METHODS:160 patients with hospital acquired pneumonia were randomly divided into 2groups and given cefoperazone sodium and cefoperazone sulbactam respectively. The cost of each case was calculated,analyzedand evaluated by using pharmacoeconomic cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS:Cure rate of 2 groups were 70.0% and 75.0%(P0.05) ,while total effective rate were 85.0% and 92.5%(P0.05) ,respectively. The incidence of adverse drug reactions were6.2% and 7.5%(P0.05) . The cost-effectiveness(C/E) were 55.08 yuan and 59.30 yuan(P0.05) . CONCLUSION:There is nostatistical significance in the difference of cefoperazone sodium vs. cefoperazone sulbactam in the treatment of hospital acquiredpneumonia,and cefoperazone sodium shows cost-effectiveness advantage because of low cost.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cefoperazone sodium and cefoperazone sulbactam in the treat-ment of hospital acquired pneumonia. METHODS:160 patients with hospital acquired pneumonia were randomly divided into 2groups and given cefoperazone sodium and cefoperazone sulbactam respectively. The cost of each case was calculated,analyzedand evaluated by using pharmacoeconomic cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS:Cure rate of 2 groups were 70.0% and 75.0%(P0.05) ,while total effective rate were 85.0% and 92.5%(P0.05) ,respectively. The incidence of adverse drug reactions were6.2% and 7.5%(P0.05) . The cost-effectiveness(C/E) were 55.08 yuan and 59.30 yuan(P0.05) . CONCLUSION:There is nostatistical significance in the difference of cefoperazone sodium vs. cefoperazone sulbactam in the treatment of hospital acquiredpneumonia,and cefoperazone sodium shows cost-effectiveness advantage because of low cost.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cefoperazone sodium and cefoperazone sulbactam in the treat-ment of hospital acquired pneumonia. METHODS:160 patients with hospital acquired pneumonia were randomly divided into 2groups and given cefoperazone sodium and cefoperazone sulbactam respectively. The cost of each case was calculated,analyzedand evaluated by using pharmacoeconomic cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS:Cure rate of 2 groups were 70.0% and 75.0%(P0.05) ,while total effective rate were 85.0% and 92.5%(P0.05) ,respectively. The incidence of adverse drug reactions were6.2% and 7.5%(P0.05) . The cost-effectiveness(C/E) were 55.08 yuan and 59.30 yuan(P0.05) . CONCLUSION:There is nostatistical significance in the difference of cefoperazone sodium vs. cefoperazone sulbactam in the treatment of hospital acquiredpneumonia,and cefoperazone sodium shows cost-effectiveness advantage because of low cost.

Key concepts: Cefoperazone, Medicine, Pneumonia, Sulbactam, Internal medicine, Antibiotics, Microbiology, Biology

Related papers

Related paper 1Related paper 2Related paper 3
Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Cefoperazone versus Compound Enzyme Inhibitor in the Treatment of Hospital Acquired Pneumonia — Research Paper | ScholarLens