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

  • Citra Sari Purbandini Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia.
  • Rani Sauriasari Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia.

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 total
sampling based on medical records and hospital information systems. Subjects were limited to patients diagnosed with typhoid fever and using
ceftriaxone or non-ceftriaxone antibiotics. A total of 15 patients were investigated, comprising 10 patients on ceftriaxone and five patients using nonceftriaxone
antibiotics. Effectiveness was evaluated by the length of hospitalization. The cost was a median of total costs, consisting of the cost of the
drug, 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-effectiveness
ratio 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.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness analysis, Typhoid fever, Hospitalization days, Ceftriaxone, Non-ceftriaxone.

References

1. NICD: Typhoid : NICD Recommendations for Diagnosis, Management
and Public Health Response. South Africa: The National Institute for
Communicable Diseases; 2016.
2. WHO. Typhoid in Vaccines and Disease. Washington, DC: WHO;
2015.
3. Agency for Health Research and Development. Indonesian Basic
Health Research 2007. Jakarta: Department of Health, Republic of
Indonesia; 2008.
4. Berger S. Typhoid and Enteric Fever: Global Status. California:
GIDEON Informatics, Inc.; 2015.
5. Fithria RF, Damayanti K, Fauziah P. Differences in the Effectiveness
of Antibiotics in the Treatment of Typhoid Fever in Bancak, Semarang,
2014. Proceeding of National Seminar: Opportunity of Herbal as
Alternative Medicine; 2015. p. 1-6.
6. Naveed A, Ahmed Z. Treatment of typhoid fever in children:
Comparison of efficacy of ciprofloxacin with ceftriaxone. J Middle
East North Afr Sci 2015;12 Suppl 6:346-55.
7. Rani MU. Comparative study of efficacy of cefuroxime and ceftriaxone
in enteric. Fever 2015;14 Suppl 1:27-32.
8. Stoesser N, Eyre D, Basnyat B, Parry C. Treatment of enteric
fever (typhoid and paratyphoid fever) with third and fourth
generation cephalosporins (Protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2013;2013:CD010452.
9. Sköld O. Antibiotics and Antibiotics Resistance. Canada: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.; 2011.
10. Nelwan RH. Levofloxacin : Today’s Choice for the Treatment of Typhoid
Fever ? An Illustrative Case Report from Indonesia; n.d. p. 41-4.
11. Government of KLPB. Drugs Product Catalog; 2017. Available from:
http://www.e-katalog.lkpp.go.id.
12. Ministry of Health, Republic of Indonesia. Guidelines for the
Application of the Economic Pharmacy. Jakarta: Ministry of Health;
2013.
13. Baldi A. Pharmacoeconomics: Principles, methods and economic
evaluation of drug therapies. Ph Tech Med 2017;2 Suppl 5:362-9.
14. Nimin P, Santhosh KV. A comparative study on drug use of antimicrobial
agents in medical surgical intensive care units of a tertiary care hospital.
Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2018;11:310-3.
15. Mohd YK, Maryada R, Raj KR, Umesh KB. A review-ceftriaxone for
life. Asian J Pharm Res 2017;7:35-48.
16. Limpitikul W, Singchungchai P. Costs and effectiveness of ciprofloxacin
and ceftriaxone in treatment of typhoid fever in children in Thailand. Int
J Public Health 2012;3 Suppl 1:192-7.
17. Choudhary T. Comparison of injectable ciprofloxacin and injectable
ceftriaxone for the treatment of hospitalized patients with enteric fever.
Ann Pak Int Med Sci 2014;10 Suppl 4:182-6.
18. Teti ST, Dewi RM. The rationality of antibiotics therapy toward
childern with typhoid fever at M.M. Dunda Hospital. Asian J Pharm
Clin Res 2018;11:185-8.
19. Trask LS. Pharmacoeconomics: Principles, methods, and applications.
In: Di Piro JT, Talbert RL, Yee GC, Matzke GR, Wells BG, Posey LM,
editors. Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach. 8th ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; 2011.
Statistics
106 Views | 94 Downloads
Citatons
How to Cite
Purbandini, C. S., & Sauriasari, R. (2018). COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF CEFTRIAXONE AND NON-CEFTRIAXONE ON TYPHOID FEVER PATIENTS. International Journal of Applied Pharmaceutics, 10(1), 87-91. https://doi.org/10.22159/ijap.2018.v10s1.18
Section
Original Article(s)