↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with piperacillin/tazobactam as empiric therapy based on the in-vitro surveillance of bacterial isolates in the United States for the treatment…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with piperacillin/tazobactam as empiric therapy based on the in-vitro surveillance of bacterial isolates in the United States for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2408-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teresa L Kauf, Vimalanand S. Prabhu, Goran Medic, Rebekah H. Borse, Benjamin Miller, Jennifer Gaultney, Shuvayu S. Sen, Anirban Basu

Abstract

A challenge in the empiric treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) is identifying the initial appropriate antibiotic therapy (IAAT), which is associated with reduced length of stay and mortality compared with initial inappropriate antibiotic therapy (IIAT). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with piperacillin/tazobactam (one of the standard of care antibiotics), for the treatment of hospitalized patients with cUTI. A decision-analytic Monte Carlo simulation model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of empiric treatment with either ceftolozane/tazobactam or piperacillin/tazobactam in hospitalized adult patients with cUTI infected with Gram-negative pathogens in the US. The model applies the baseline prevalence of resistance as reported by national in-vitro surveillance data. In a cohort of 1000 patients, treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam resulted in higher total costs compared with piperacillin/tazobactam ($36,413 /patient vs. $36,028/patient, respectively), greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (9.19/patient vs. 9.13/patient, respectively) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $6128/QALY. Ceftolozane/tazobactam remained cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY compared to piperacillin/tazobactam over a range of input parameter values during one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Model results show that ceftolozane/tazobactam is likely to be cost-effective compared with piperacillin/tazobactam for the empiric treatment of hospitalized cUTI patients in the United States.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Master 6 10%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 17 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 7%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 19 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,326,285
of 23,924,386 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#678
of 7,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,173
of 313,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#19
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,924,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.