ABSTRACT
Comprehensive economic analyses should include outpatient as well as inpatient resources. A healthcare system that includes both inpatient and outpatient care, such as prescriptions, physician care, laboratory tests and multiple other items, has been termed an Integrated Healthcare Network (IHN). Thus, cost-effectiveness analyses from the perspective of an IHN are necessary. We report a cost-effectiveness analysis from an IHN perspective on 187 evaluable hospitalised patients with serious infection who participated in randomised clinical trials that evaluated either: (i) standard regimens of intravenous (i.v.) antibacterial therapy, usually followed by oral antibacterial therapy; or (ii) an abbreviated regimen of intravenous antibacterials for 2 to 4 days, followed by either oral ciprofloxacin or oral enoxacin as early switch therapy. Clinical success rates were similar for the 2 treatment groups. The median number of days of in-hospital antibacterial treatment was 11 for standard i.v. therapy and 10 for switch therapy. Adverse events occurred in 33% of the standard i.v. therapy group and in 50% of the switch therapy group. Sensitivity analysis of drug price and hospital bed cost showed that switch therapy was consistently more cost effective than standard i.v. therapy. Standard i.v. therapy would have to be 10% more effective than switch therapy to change the economic decision. In this analysis, switch therapy was a cost-effective treatment with no demonstrated change in efficacy compared with standard i.v. therapy.
