Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-29T19:55:14.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost Savings through Technological Change in the Administration of Antibiotics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Lycurgus L. Liaropoulos
Lycurgus L. Liaropoulos
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Once-daily antibiotics (ODAs) represent a technological change in hospital processes that can lead to substantial savings of scarce resources. In a three-hospital prospective study, five antibiotics were administered to 58 patients suffering from infections classified by major body system. Savings ranged from 10.9% to 38%, depending on hospital organization, method of delivery, and daily dose. Per-unit price proved a poor indicator of hospital cost, as variable delivery costs for labor and materials ranged from 11.6% to 39.5% of total costs.

Type
Research Notes
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , Fall 1993 , pp. 580 - 587
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Baumgartner, J. D., & Glauser, M. P.Single daily dose treatment of severe refractory infections with ceftriaxone. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1983, 143, 1868–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Eisenberg, J. M., Koffer, H., & Finkler, S. A.Economic analysis of a new drug: Potential savings in hospital operating costs from the use of a once-daily regimen of a parental cephalosporin. Review of Infectious Diseases, 1984, 6 (suppl. 4), S909–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Elixhauser, L. A.Standards for the socioeconomic evaluation of health care services. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
4.Eron, L. J., Hixon, D. L., Park, C. H., et al. Ceftriaxone therapy in an outpatient setting. In Progress in therapy of bacterial infections. A new cephalosporin: Ceftriaxone. Asia Pacific Congress Series No. 19. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1983, 123–29.Google Scholar
5.Girgis, N. I., Abu El-Ella, A. H., Farid, Z., et al. Ceftriaxone alone compared to Ampicillin and Chloramphenicol in the treatment of bacterial meningitis. Chemotherapy, 1988, 34 (suppl. 1), 16–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Graber, H., Magyar, T., & Arr, M. Ceftriaxone versus Cefamandole in the treatment of biliary tract infections. Proceedings of the IXth International Congress of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases. Munich, 07 20–26, 1986, 18–19.Google Scholar
7.Hall, J. C., Mander, J., Christiansen, K., et al. Cost-efficiency of a long-acting cephalosporin agent. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, 1988, 58, 733–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Hemsell, D. L., Bawdon, R. E., Hemsell, P. G., et al. Ceftriaxone and cefazolin for the prevention of major infection following vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy. 13th International Congress of Chemotherapy, Vienna, Aug. 28–Sept. 2, 1983.Google Scholar
9.Hoepelman, I. M., Rosenberg-Arska, M., & Verhoef, J.Comparative study of Ceftriaxone monotherapy versus a combination regimen of Cefuroxime plus Gentamicin for treatment of serious bacterial infections: The efficacy, safety and effect on fecal flora. Chemotherapy, 1988, 34 (suppl. 1), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Karachalios, N., Georgiopoulos, A. N., & Kanatakis, N.Treatment of various infections in an outpatient practice by intramuscular ceftriaxone: Home parenteral therapy. Chemotherapy, 1989, 35, 389–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.OECD. Health care systems in transition. Social Policy Series No. 7, Paris: OECD, 1990.Google Scholar
12.Plumridge, J. R.Cost comparison of intravenous antibiotic administration. Medical Journal of Australia, 1990, 153, 516–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Stamboulian, D., Bologna, R., Sarachian, B., et al. Once-daily ceftriaxone versus conventional therapy for bacterial meningitis in children. Proceedings of the IXth International Congress of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases. Munich, 07 20–26, 1986, 10–11.Google Scholar