Display options
Share it on

Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2010 Apr 29;3(5):1348-1359. doi: 10.3390/ph3051348.

Health Economics of Antibiotics.

Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)

Steven Simoens

Affiliations

  1. Research Centre for Pharmaceutical Care and Pharmaco-economics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, O&N 2 P.O. Box 521, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. [email protected].

PMID: 27713306 PMCID: PMC4033985 DOI: 10.3390/ph3051348

Abstract

Antibiotics have made a significant contribution to improving patient health, but policy makers and health care payers are concerned about the costs of antibiotics in addition to their effectiveness. This paper aims to assess the value of antibiotics by examining incremental cost-utility ratios of antibiotics. Evidence was derived from cost-utility analyses of antibiotics included in the Tufts-New England Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry through September 2009. The analysis included 85 incremental cost-utility ratios from 23 cost-utility analyses. The findings showed that 38.8% of incremental cost-utility ratios related to dominant antibiotics (i.e., more effective and less costly than the comparator); 45.9% referred to antibiotics that improved effectiveness, but also increased costs; and 15.3% related to dominated antibiotics (i.e., less effective and more costly than the comparator). The median ratio was 748 € per quality-adjusted life year. Using threshold values of 20,000 € per quality-adjusted life year and 50,000 € per quality-adjusted life year, the probability that an antibiotic provides value for money was 64% and 67%, respectively. The current evidence base suggests that the majority of antibiotics provide value for money and that antibiotics can aid decision makers to attain further population health improvements, whilst containing pharmaceutical expenditures.

Keywords: antibiotics; cost-utility analysis; health economics; incremental cost-utility ratio

References

  1. AIDS Care. 2006 Feb;18(2):109-20 - PubMed
  2. Clin Infect Dis. 1999 Nov;29(5):1251-6 - PubMed
  3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jul 20;(3):CD000247 - PubMed
  4. JAMA. 1996 Oct 16;276(15):1253-8 - PubMed
  5. Crit Care. 2009;13(2):R35 - PubMed
  6. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(13):829-37 - PubMed
  7. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Mar 1;91(3):634-41 - PubMed
  8. Am J Rhinol. 2007 Jul-Aug;21(4):444-51 - PubMed
  9. Prim Care Respir J. 2004 Sep;13(3):159-66 - PubMed
  10. Am J Infect Control. 2003 Feb;31(1):1-8 - PubMed
  11. Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Mar 1;44 Suppl 2:S27-72 - PubMed
  12. Ann Fam Med. 2007 Jan-Feb;5(1):29-38 - PubMed
  13. Ann Intern Med. 1998 Jan 1;128(1):37-48 - PubMed
  14. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18;(4):CD000245 - PubMed
  15. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001 Apr;60(4):359-66 - PubMed
  16. Health Policy. 2001 Jun;56(3):235-50 - PubMed
  17. N Engl J Med. 2008 Feb 14;358(7):661-3 - PubMed
  18. Chest. 1998 Jan;113(1):131-41 - PubMed
  19. Health Aff (Millwood). 2000 Mar-Apr;19(2):92-109 - PubMed
  20. BJOG. 2005 Jun;112(6):820-6 - PubMed
  21. J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Oct;16(10 ):701-11 - PubMed
  22. J Urol. 2007 Feb;177(2):703-9; discussion 709 - PubMed
  23. Eur Respir J. 2005 Dec;26(6):1138-80 - PubMed
  24. AIDS. 2008 Mar 30;22(6):749-57 - PubMed
  25. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010 Mar;10(3):167-75 - PubMed
  26. Clin Ther. 1996 Jan-Feb;18(1):160-82 - PubMed
  27. Health Econ. 1994 Mar-Apr;3(2):95-104 - PubMed
  28. BMJ. 2006 Mar 25;332(7543):699-703 - PubMed
  29. Med Decis Making. 2005 May-Jun;25(3):308-20 - PubMed
  30. Pediatrics. 2004 May;113(5):1291-6 - PubMed
  31. Ann Intern Med. 2005 Apr 19;142(8):601-10 - PubMed
  32. Am J Public Health. 1989 Jun;79(6):739-43 - PubMed
  33. JAMA. 1995 Mar 1;273(9):712-20 - PubMed
  34. J Fam Pract. 1997 Jan;44(1):49-60 - PubMed
  35. Ann Intern Med. 1999 May 18;130(10 ):810-20 - PubMed
  36. BMJ. 2005 Aug 20;331(7514):446-8 - PubMed
  37. J Gen Intern Med. 1992 May-Jun;7(3):261-72 - PubMed

Publication Types