头孢他啶–阿维巴坦与美罗培南治疗成人复杂腹腔感染的成本–效果分析
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ceftazidime-Avibactam and Meropenem in the Treatment of Complex Abdominal Infection in Adults
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2025.1561838, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 宋 贤*, 普琳梅:云南省传染病医院药剂科,云南 昆明;彭琰淇*, 高 丽#:云南省传染病医院检验科,云南 昆明;大理大学公共卫生学院,云南 大理;张 念:云南省传染病医院检验科,云南 昆明
关键词: 头孢他啶–阿维巴坦美罗培南决策树模型成本–效果分析Ceftazidime-Avibactam Meropenem Decision Tree Model Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
摘要: 目的:开展头孢他啶–阿维巴坦与美罗培南治疗成人复杂腹腔感染的成本–效果分析,为医疗决策者提供参考。方法:基于Ⅲ期临床试验(NCT01726023)的研究数据及中国的医疗成本,采用TreeAge Pro 2011软件构建决策树模型,并对评价结果进行敏感性分析。结果:头孢他啶–阿维巴坦组的期望成本为26925.52元,成本–效果比为10199.06;美罗培南组的期望成本为6438.38元,成本–效果比为2402.38;增量成本–效果比为−512,175。敏感性分析结果显示模型稳定。结论:虽然头孢他啶–阿维巴坦治疗成人复杂腹腔感染疗效不劣于美罗培南,但在我国目前的经济形势下,头孢他啶–阿维巴坦暂不具有成本–效果优势。
Abstract: Objective: To carry out the cost-effectiveness analysis of Ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem in the treatment of complex abdominal infection in adults, so as to provide reference for medical decision-makers. Methods: Based on the data of phase III clinical trial (NCT01726023) and medical costs in China, a decision tree model was constructed by TreeAge Pro 2011 software, and the sensitivity of the evaluation results was analyzed. Results: The expected costs and cost-effectiveness ratio of Ceftazidime-avibactam group were 26925.52 yuan and 10199.06 respectively; The expected costs and cost-effectiveness ratio of meropenem group were 6438.38 yuan and 2402.38 respectively. And the cost-effectiveness ratio for efficiency improvement is −512,175. Sensitivity analysis shows that the model is stable. Conclusion: Although the efficacy of Ceftazidime-avibactam in the treatment of complex abdominal infection in adults is not inferior to meropenem, ceftazidime-avertam does not have a cost-effectiveness advantage in the current economic situation in China.
文章引用:宋贤, 彭琰淇, 张念, 普琳梅, 高丽. 头孢他啶–阿维巴坦与美罗培南治疗成人复杂腹腔感染的成本–效果分析[J]. 临床医学进展, 2025, 15(6): 1169-1176. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2025.1561838

参考文献

[1] Sartelli, M., Viale, P., Catena, F., et al. (2013) 2013 WSES Guidelines for Management of Intra-Abdominal Infections. World Journal of Emergency Surgery, 8, Article No. 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2] Solomkin, J., Mazuski, J.E., Bradley, J.S., et al. (2010) Diagnosis and Management of Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infection in Adults and Children: Guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 50, 133-164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[3] Solomkin, J., Ristagno, R.L., Das, A.F., et al. (2013) Source Control Review in Clinical Trials of Anti-Infective Agents in Complicated Intra Abdominal Infections. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 56, 1765-1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Bartsch, S.M., McKinnell, J.A., Mueller, L.E., et al. (2017) Potential Economic Burden of Arbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in the United States. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 23, 48.e9-48.e16.
[5] Tamma, P.D. and Rodriguez-Baňo, J. (2017) The Use of Noncarbapenem β-Lactams for the Treatment of Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase Infections. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 64, 972-980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Barber, K.E., Ortwine, J.K. and Akins, R.L. (2016) Ceftazidime/Avibactam: Who Says You Can’t Teach an Old Drug New Tricks? The Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, 19, 448-464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[7] Mazuski, J.E., Gasink, L.B., Armstrong, J., et al. (2016) Efficacy and Safety of Ceftazidime-Avibactam plus Metronidazole vs Meropenem in the Treatment of Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infection: Results from a Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Program. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 62, 1380-1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8] Morrissey, I., Hackel, M., Badal, R., et al. (2013) A Review of Ten Years of the Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends (SMART) from 2002 to 2011. Pharmaceuticals (Basel), 6, 1335-1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9] Tichy, E., Torres, A., Bassetti, M., et al. (2020) Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Ceftazidime/Avibactam versus Meropenem in the Empirical Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-associated Pneumonia, in Italy. Clinical Therapeutics, 42, 802-817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] Qin, X.Y., Tran, B.G., Kim, M.J., et al. (2017) A Randomised, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Ceftazidime/Avibactam plus Metronidazole versus Meropenem for Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections in Hospitalised Adults in Asia. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 49, 579-588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Nguyen, C.P., Do, T.N.D., Bruggemann, R., et al. (2019) Clinical Cure Rate and Cost-Effectiveness of Carbapenem Sparing Betalactams versus Meropenem for Gram-Negative Infections: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 54, 790-797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] 岑菁, 唐敏, 吕军. 头孢他啶/阿维巴坦与碳青霉烯类治疗复杂腹腔感染疗效和安全性的系统评价[J]. 中国抗生素杂志, 2020, 46(2): 162-169.