2018•International Journal of Applied PharmaceuticsOpen access

COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF CEFTRIAXONE AND NON-CEFTRIAXONE ON TYPHOID FEVER PATIENTS

Citra Sari Purbandini, Rani Sauriasari

Open full text 2 citations

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ceftriaxone and non-ceftriaxone therapies in patients with typhoid fever.Methods: The applied method was a cost-effectiveness analysis. Data were retrospectively collected, and sampling was performed using totalsampling based on medical records and hospital information systems. Subjects were limited to patients diagnosed with typhoid fever and usingceftriaxone or non-ceftriaxone antibiotics. A total of 15 patients were investigated, comprising 10 patients on ceftriaxone and five patients using nonceftriaxoneantibiotics. Effectiveness was evaluated by the length of hospitalization. The cost was a median of total costs, consisting of the cost of thedrug, concomitant drugs, medical equipment, laboratory tests, doctor, health-care services, and hospitalization.Results: The results showed the effectiveness of ceftriaxone (3.80±0.789 days) did not differ with the non-ceftriaxone drugs (3.40±1.635 days).However, the total cost of ceftriaxone (Rp 1,929,355) was less than that of non-ceftriaxone antibiotics (Rp 2,787,003). The average cost-effectivenessratio of ceftriaxone group (Rp 507,725/effectiveness) was lower compared to the non-ceftriaxone (Rp 819,707/effectiveness).Conclusions: This study results showed that ceftriaxone was more cost-effective than non-ceftriaxone antibiotics.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ceftriaxone and non-ceftriaxone therapies in patients with typhoid fever.Methods: The applied method was a cost-effectiveness analysis. Data were retrospectively collected, and sampling was performed using totalsampling based on medical records and hospital information systems. Subjects were limited to patients diagnosed with typhoid fever and usingceftriaxone or non-ceftriaxone antibiotics. A total of 15 patients were investigated, comprising 10 patients on ceftriaxone and five patients using nonceftriaxoneantibiotics. Effectiveness was evaluated by the length of hospitalization. The cost was a median of total costs, consisting of the cost of thedrug, concomitant drugs, medical equipment, laboratory tests, doctor, health-care services, and hospitalization.Results: The results showed the effectiveness of ceftriaxone (3.80±0.789 days) did not differ with the non-ceftriaxone drugs (3.40±1.635 days).However, the total cost of ceftriaxone (Rp 1,929,355) was less than that of non-ceftriaxone antibiotics (Rp 2,787,003). The average cost-effectivenessratio of ceftriaxone group (Rp 507,725/effectiveness) was lower compared to the non-ceftriaxone (Rp 819,707/effectiveness).Conclusions: This study results showed that ceftriaxone was more cost-effective than non-ceftriaxone antibiotics.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

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: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ceftriaxone and non-ceftriaxone therapies in patients with typhoid fever.Methods: The applied method was a cost-effectiveness analysis. Data were retrospectively collected, and sampling was performed using totalsampling based on medical records and hospital information systems. Subjects were limited to patients diagnosed with typhoid fever and usingceftriaxone or non-ceftriaxone antibiotics. A total of 15 patients were investigated, comprising 10 patients on ceftriaxone and five patients using nonceftriaxoneantibiotics. Effectiveness was evaluated by the length of hospitalization. The cost was a median of total costs, consisting of the cost of thedrug, concomitant drugs, medical equipment, laboratory tests, doctor, health-care services, and hospitalization.Results: The results showed the effectiveness of ceftriaxone (3.80±0.789 days) did not differ with the non-ceftriaxone drugs (3.40±1.635 days).However, the total cost of ceftriaxone (Rp 1,929,355) was less than that of non-ceftriaxone antibiotics (Rp 2,787,003). The average cost-effectivenessratio of ceftriaxone group (Rp 507,725/effectiveness) was lower compared to the non-ceftriaxone (Rp 819,707/effectiveness).Conclusions: This study results showed that ceftriaxone was more cost-effective than non-ceftriaxone antibiotics.

Key concepts: Ceftriaxone, Medicine, Typhoid fever, Antibiotics, Concomitant, Internal medicine, Biology, Microbiology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF CEFTRIAXONE AND NON-CEFTRIAXONE ON TYPHOID FEVER PATIENTS — Research Paper | ScholarLens