The Annals Holiday Offer - Save 50%
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Drug Intelligence & Clinical Pharmacy: Vol. 22, No. 7, pp. 628-631.
© 1988 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Parr, M.
Right arrow Articles by Rapp, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Parr, M.
Right arrow Articles by Rapp, R.


Research Articles

Cost comparison of ceftazidime versus tobramycin/ticarcillin therapy in three hospitals

MD Parr, LA Hansen, and RP Rapp

A retrospective review of 114 patient charts was conducted at three geographically different hospitals to compare the costs of ceftazidime (CTZ) with the combination of tobramycin and ticarcillin (T/T) in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonias and/or septicemias. Variables analyzed to determine the cost of the therapy included duration of treatment, dosage and number of doses administered, side effects, and laboratory tests. Time and motion studies were also performed and the results included in the algorithm. In two of the three hospitals, the computer-calculated cost of CTZ therapy was significantly less than for T/T therapy ($1194 vs. $1668 and $93 vs $629). In the third hospital there was no significant difference in the costs of the two treatments ($1079 for CTZ vs. $1066 for T/T). The cost of each regimen per patient day followed a similar pattern, with CTZ therapy being significantly less expensive in the same two hospitals. Patients receiving CTZ therapy realized an average cost savings of $29.70 per day at the three institutions. These savings appeared to be due to a reduction in laboratory and administration costs resulting from the decreased frequency of CTZ administration. We conclude that CTZ therapy was less costly than T/T therapy at three geographically different institutions when the cost of supplies, laboratory tests, and personnel time were taken into account.





homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1988 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.