Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fosfomycin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Ontario

3Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and Objective. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics traditionally used to treat uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs) is rising in Canada. We compared the cost-per-patient in Ontario of including fosfomycin (an antibiotic with a low resistance profile) as an option for first-line empirical treatment of uUTIs with current cost of treatment with sulfonamides, fluoroquinolones, and nitrofurantoin. Methods. A decision-tree model was used to perform a cost-minimization analysis. All possible outcomes of a uUTI caused by bacterial species treated with either sulfonamides, fluoroquinolones, nitrofurantoin, or fosfomycin were included. Results. In the base case analysis, the cost-per-patient for treating uUTI with fosfomycin was $105.12. This is similar to the cost-per-patient for each of the other currently reimbursed antibiotics (e.g., $96.19 for sulfonamides, $98.85 for fluoroquinolones, and $99.09 for nitrofurantoins). The weighted average cost-per-patient for treating uUTI was not substantially elevated with the inclusion of fosfomycin in the treatment landscape ($98.41 versus $98.29 with and without fosfomycin, resp.). The sensitivity analyses revealed that most (88.34%) of the potential variation in cost was associated with the probability of progressing to pyelonephritis and hospitalization for pyelonephritis. Conclusion. Fosfomycin in addition to being a safe and effective agent to treat uUTI has a low resistance profile, offers a single-dose treatment administration, and is similar in cost to other reimbursed antibiotics.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Perrault, L., Dahan, S., Iliza, A. C., Lelorier, J., & Zhanel, G. G. (2017). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fosfomycin for Treatment of Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6362804

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free