L R Friedland1, R M Kulick, F M Biro, A Patterson. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, OH, USA.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compared the cost-effectiveness of two single-dose treatment strategies for adolescents with uncomplicated Neisseria gonorrhoeae cervicitis. METHODS: We used a cost-effectiveness decision- analysis model to compare the two methods: the standard, ceftriaxone 125 mg given by IM injection; and an alternative, cefixime 400 mg given orally. The effect of the costs associated with the risk of accidental needlestick during IM administration was also evaluated. Key baseline assumptions (with ranges, when tested) were from the literature or costs to our hospital. These included ceftriaxone, $8.60 per dose; cefixime, $4.67 per dose; ceftriaxone efficacy, 98% (range, 94.9% to 100%); cefixime efficacy, 97% (94.1% to 100%); and a 15% probability of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) related to failed treatment. We included costs for PID necessitating hospitalization, disseminated gonococcal infection, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy. Assumptions related to accidental needlestick included the rate of needlesticks with the disposable syringe, 6.9 per 100,000 injections (range, 0 to 69); cost of accidental needlestick to hospital; risk of HIV seroconversion after needlestick exposure to HIV-infected blood, .36% (range, 0% to .86%); rate of HIV infection in 15- to 19-year-olds attending sexually transmitted diseases clinics, .4% (range, 0 to 5); and lifetime treatment costs for a person with HIV. RESULTS: At baseline values the model favored ceftriaxone ($45 per patient) or cefixime ($59 per patient). However, over the range of efficacy of both drugs, two-way sensitivity analysis revealed no consistent cost advantage for either drug. The model was also insensitive to the economic effects associated with the risk of accidental needlestick during IM injection. CONCLUSION: over the range of efficacy by the 95% confidence intervals of both drugs, our analysis demonstrated no clear cost advantage for either. The economic effects of accidental needlestick do not change this conclusion. Compared with the IM alternative, oral cefixime is painless to the patient and simpler for the practitioner to administer. Oral cefixime also eliminates the psychologic effects associated with needlesticks in health care workers. For these reasons, we favor the use of oral cefixime for uncomplicated gonococcal cervicitis in adolescents.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compared the cost-effectiveness of two single-dose treatment strategies for adolescents with uncomplicated Neisseria gonorrhoeae cervicitis. METHODS: We used a cost-effectiveness decision- analysis model to compare the two methods: the standard, ceftriaxone 125 mg given by IM injection; and an alternative, cefixime 400 mg given orally. The effect of the costs associated with the risk of accidental needlestick during IM administration was also evaluated. Key baseline assumptions (with ranges, when tested) were from the literature or costs to our hospital. These included ceftriaxone, $8.60 per dose; cefixime, $4.67 per dose; ceftriaxone efficacy, 98% (range, 94.9% to 100%); cefixime efficacy, 97% (94.1% to 100%); and a 15% probability of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) related to failed treatment. We included costs for PID necessitating hospitalization, disseminated gonococcal infection, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy. Assumptions related to accidental needlestick included the rate of needlesticks with the disposable syringe, 6.9 per 100,000 injections (range, 0 to 69); cost of accidental needlestick to hospital; risk of HIV seroconversion after needlestick exposure to HIV-infected blood, .36% (range, 0% to .86%); rate of HIV infection in 15- to 19-year-olds attending sexually transmitted diseases clinics, .4% (range, 0 to 5); and lifetime treatment costs for a person with HIV. RESULTS: At baseline values the model favored ceftriaxone ($45 per patient) or cefixime ($59 per patient). However, over the range of efficacy of both drugs, two-way sensitivity analysis revealed no consistent cost advantage for either drug. The model was also insensitive to the economic effects associated with the risk of accidental needlestick during IM injection. CONCLUSION: over the range of efficacy by the 95% confidence intervals of both drugs, our analysis demonstrated no clear cost advantage for either. The economic effects of accidental needlestick do not change this conclusion. Compared with the IM alternative, oral cefixime is painless to the patient and simpler for the practitioner to administer. Oral cefixime also eliminates the psychologic effects associated with needlesticks in health care workers. For these reasons, we favor the use of oral cefixime for uncomplicated gonococcal cervicitis in adolescents.