Open AccessCOST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF CEFTRIAXONE AND NON-CEFTRIAXONE ON TYPHOID FEVER PATIENTS
Author(s) -
Citra Sari Purbandini,
Rani Sauriasari
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
international journal of applied pharmaceutics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.238
H-Index - 15
ISSN - 0975-7058
DOI - 10.22159/ijap.2018.v10s1.18
Subject(s) - ceftriaxone , medicine , typhoid fever , antibiotics , concomitant , pathology , microbiology and biotechnology , biology
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.