Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis cost-effectiveness of therapy: Difference between revisions
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* Abdominal [[paracentesis]] with appropriate ascitic fluid analysis is probably the most rapid and cost-effective method of diagnosing the cause of [[ascites]] | * Abdominal [[paracentesis]] with appropriate ascitic fluid analysis is probably the most rapid and cost-effective method of diagnosing the cause of [[ascites]] | ||
* Regular infusions of [[albumin]] for treatment of new-onset or [[refractory ascites]] should be considered experimental until more studies demonstrate efficacy and cost-effectiveness. | * Regular infusions of [[albumin]] for treatment of new-onset or [[refractory ascites]] should be considered experimental until more studies demonstrate efficacy and cost-effectiveness. | ||
* Intravenous ciprofloxacin followed by oral administration of this drug was found to be more cost-effective compared to intravenous ceftazidime in a randomized trial in patients who had not received quinolone prophylaxis. | * Intravenous [[ciprofloxacin]] followed by oral administration of this drug was found to be more cost-effective compared to intravenous [[ceftazidime]] in a randomized trial in patients who had not received quinolone prophylaxis. | ||
* Selective intestinal decontamination with norfloxacin or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole in patients with prior spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) or low-protein ascitic fluid does appear to be cost-effective. <ref>http://guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=14887&search=ascitis</ref> | * Selective intestinal decontamination with [[norfloxacin]] or [[trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole]] in patients with prior [[spontaneous bacterial peritonitis]] (SBP) or low-protein ascitic fluid does appear to be cost-effective. <ref>http://guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=14887&search=ascitis</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 21:45, 1 August 2012
|
Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis Microchapters |
|
Differentiating Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis from other Diseases |
|
Diagnosis |
|
Treatment |
|
Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis cost-effectiveness of therapy On the Web |
|
American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis cost-effectiveness of therapy |
|
FDA on Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis cost-effectiveness of therapy |
|
CDC on Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis cost-effectiveness of therapy |
|
Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis cost-effectiveness of therapy in the news |
|
Blogs on Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis cost-effectiveness of therapy |
|
Directions to Hospitals Treating Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis |
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Aditya Govindavarjhulla, M.B.B.S. [2]
Overview
The use of prophylactic antibiotics to decrease the incidence of spontaneous bacterial peritonits is a cost-saving strategy in patients with cirrhosis and ascites.
Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy
- Norfloxacin prophylaxis resulted in savings between $2216 and $8545 per patient per year, depending on the patient group studied.
- Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis resulted in savings between $2934 and $9251 per patient per year. [1]
- Abdominal paracentesis with appropriate ascitic fluid analysis is probably the most rapid and cost-effective method of diagnosing the cause of ascites
- Regular infusions of albumin for treatment of new-onset or refractory ascites should be considered experimental until more studies demonstrate efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
- Intravenous ciprofloxacin followed by oral administration of this drug was found to be more cost-effective compared to intravenous ceftazidime in a randomized trial in patients who had not received quinolone prophylaxis.
- Selective intestinal decontamination with norfloxacin or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole in patients with prior spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) or low-protein ascitic fluid does appear to be cost-effective. [2]