cilastatin--imipenem-drug-combination and sultamicillin

Diabetic foot ulcers and infections are common and incur substantial economic burden for society, patients and families. We performed a comprehensive review, on a number of databases, of health economic evaluations of a variety of different prevention, diagnostic and treatment strategies in the area of diabetic foot ulcers and infections. We included English-language, peer-reviewed, cost-effectiveness, cost-minimization, cost-utility and cost-benefit studies that evaluated a treatment modality against placebo or comparator (i.e. drug, standard of care), regardless of year. Differences were settled through consensus. The search resulted in 1885 potential citations, of which 20 studies were retained for analysis (3 cost minimization, 13 cost effectiveness and 4 cost utility). Quality scores of studies ranged from 70.8% (fair) to 87.5% (good); mean = 78.4% +/- 5.33%.In diagnosing osteomyelitis in patients with diabetic foot infection, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed 82% sensitivity and 80% specificity. MRI cost less than 3-phase bone scanning + Indium (In)-111/Gallium (Ga)-67; however, when compared with prolonged antibacterials, MRI cost $US120 (year 1993 value) more without additional quality-adjusted life-expectancy. Prevention strategies improved life expectancy and QALYs and reduced foot ulcer rates and amputations.Ampicillin/sulbactam and imipenem/cilastatin were both 80% successful in treating diabetic foot infections but the latter cost $US2924 more (year 1994 value). Linezolid cure rates were higher (97.7%) than vancomycin (86.0%) and cost $US873 less (year 2004 value). Ertapenem costs were significantly lower than piperacillin/tazobactam ($US356 vs $US503, respectively; year 2005 values). Becaplermin plus good wound care may be cost effective in specific populations. Bioengineered living-skin equivalents increased ulcer-free months and ulcers healed, but costs varied between countries. Promogran produced more ulcer-free months than wound care alone (3.75 vs 3.41 months, respectively). Treatment with cadexomer iodine resulted in higher rates of healed ulcer (29% vs 11%) and lower weekly treatment costs (Swedish krona [SEK]903 vs SEK1421; year 1993 values) than standard care. Filgrastim decreased hospital stays, time to resolution and costs (36% lower) compared with usual care. Adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen produced an incremental cost per QALY at year 1 of $US27 310 and $US2255 at year 12 (year 2001 values).Overall, preventive strategies were

Topics: Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diabetes Complications; Diabetic Foot; Drug Combinations; Economics, Pharmaceutical; Humans; Imipenem; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Sulbactam

Acinetobacter organisms, which are a common cause of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in some health care centers, are becoming more resistant to such first-line agents as imipenem-cilastatin (Imi-Cil). Sulbactam has good in vitro activity against Acinetobacter organisms; thus, ampicillin-sulbactam (Amp-Sulb) may be a viable treatment alternative. The outcomes for critically ill trauma patients with Acinetobacter VAP treated with either Amp-Sulb or Imi-Cil were compared retrospectively. A total of 77 episodes in 75 patients were studied. Fourteen patients were treated with Amp-Sulb, and 63 patients were treated with Imi-Cil. Treatment efficacy was similar in the Amp-Sulb and Imi-Cil groups (93% vs. 83%, respectively; P>.05). No statistically significant differences between groups were noted with regard to associated mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital. However, adjunctive aminoglycoside therapy was used more often in the Amp-Sulb group. Patients generally received Amp-Sulb because of imipenem resistance. Amp-Sulb was effective in treating a small number of patients with Acinetobacter VAP; however, more data are needed.

Topics: Acinetobacter; Adult; Ampicillin; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Pneumonia, Bacterial; Retrospective Studies; Sulbactam; Treatment Outcome; Ventilators, Mechanical

To evaluate epidemiology, resistance, and treatment outcomes of Acinetobacter baumannii bacteremia treated with imipenem-cilastatin or ampicillin-sulbactam for 72 hours or longer.. Retrospective analysis.. University teaching hospital.. Forty-eight patients with A. baumannii bacteremia.. Evaluation of susceptibility and clinical data from 48 patients treated with either ampicillin-sulbactam or imipenem-cilastatin from 1987-1999.. Comparing ampicillin-sulbactam and imipenem-cilastatin, there were no differences between days of bacteremia (4 vs 2 days, p=0.05), days to resolution of temperature or white blood cell count, success or failure during or at end of treatment, or intensive care unit total or antibiotic-related length of stay (13 vs 10 days, p=0.05). Patients treated with ampicillin-sulbactam had significantly decreased antibiotic treatment costs (1500 dollars vs 500 dollars, p=0.004).. Ampicillin-sulbactam is at least as effective as imipenem-cilastatin based on clinical response at days 2, 7, and end of treatment and is a cost-effective alternative for treatment of A. baumannii infections.

Topics: Acinetobacter Infections; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Ampicillin; Bacteremia; Chi-Square Distribution; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Imipenem; Male; Middle Aged; Retrospective Studies; Statistics, Nonparametric; Sulbactam; Treatment Outcome

Cefamandole, cefoxitin, cefotetan, ceftizoxime, imipenem plus cilastatin, and ampicillin plus sulbactam were compared in the eradication of subcutaneous abscess in mice caused by Bacteroides fragilis group organisms and Escherichia coli alone or in combination. The abscesses were examined 5 d after inoculation. B. fragilis group reached log10.1-11.0 organisms per abscess and E. coli log11.6-12.5. Imipenem plus cilastatin significantly reduced (in 6.9-10.6 logs) the number of E. coli and all members of B. fragilis group alone or in all combinations. Ampicillin plus sulbactam reduced the numbers of all B. fragilis group (in 4.2-7.2 logs) but was less effective against E. coli (reduction of 1.8-4.2 logs). Cefoxitin was effective in significantly reducing (in 4.9-6.2 logs) the number of E. coli and all members of B. fragilis group alone or in all combinations. Cefotetan was effective against B. fragilis (reduction of 5.1-6.6 logs) and E. coli alone or in combination but did not reduce the number of Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, Bacteroides vulgatus, and Bacteroides ovatus. Ceftizoxime was effective against only B. ovatus (reduction of 3.7-5.8) and E. coli (reduction of 6.0-8.1 logs); it did not reduce the number of other organisms. Cefamandole was effective against only E. coli and was not effective against any member of the B. fragilis group. These in vivo data confirm the in vitro activity of these antimicrobials.

Topics: Abscess; Ampicillin; Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteroides fragilis; Bacteroides Infections; Cefamandole; Cefotetan; Cefoxitin; Ceftizoxime; Cilastatin; Cilastatin, Imipenem Drug Combination; Disease Models, Animal; Drug Combinations; Drug Therapy, Combination; Escherichia coli; Escherichia coli Infections; Imipenem; Male; Mice; Skin Diseases; Sulbactam