A number of new antibiotics have lately become available for treatment of lower respiratory tract infections in out-patients. The new drugs are generally more expensive than the older ones, which might be justified by better effects, improved safety, or by other advantages. In this study, a retrospective economic analysis has been made using data from a previous trial comparing a new macrolide, roxithromycin, with an older 1, erythromycin stearate in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections. The trial was multicentre, double blind, randomized and comparative. There were no significant differences in efficacy between treatments, although the cure rate was higher for roxithromycin, 85% vs 79% for erythromycin. 20/39 of the erythromycin-treated patients reported adverse events, vs 7/40 roxithromycin-treated subjects, a highly significant difference. More detailed information was obtained by reviewing the medical records of the participants, and from questionnaires distributed to the 3 centres that had included patients in the trial. Additional visits were found necessary for ? patients treated with erythromycin and for 1 using roxithromycin. Using the healing rates in the present investigation, and including costs for initial drug treatments, second consultations, and failed therapy, average cost-effectiveness (SEK/patient cured) was 409 for roxithromycin-treated patients, and 488 for erythromycin-treated. Roxithromycin should then be cheaper than erythromycin stearate. With the same healing rate, roxithromycin would be less cost-effective, but indirect costs and effects on quality of Life are not then taken into account.
(8.0+极速模式)