Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection in women: a comparison of four antibiotics
Royal College of General Practitioners
Copyright © BJGP Open 2017.
Background Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common reasons for women to attend primary care. There are four different antibiotics currently recommended in England for treatment of uncomplicated UTI but little evidence on their comparative cost-effectiveness. Aim To assess the relative cost-effectiveness of the four antibiotics currently recommended in England for treatment of uncomplicated UTI in adult women. Design & setting A cost-effectiveness model in adult women with signs and symptoms of uncomplicated UTI in primary care in England treated with fosfomycin, nitrofurantoin, pivmecillinam, or trimethoprim. Method A decision tree economic model of the treatment pathway encompassed up to two rounds of treatment, accounting for different resistance levels. End points included recovery, persistence, pyelonephritis, and/or hospitalisation. Prescription, primary and secondary care treatment, and diagnostic testing costs were aggregated. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per UTI resolved. Results Trimethoprim 200 mg twice daily (for 3 or 7 days) was estimated to be the most cost-effective treatment (£70 per UTI resolved) when resistance was <30%. However, if resistance to trimethoprim was ≥30%, fosfomycin 3 g once became more cost-effective; at resistance levels of ≥35% for trimethoprim, both fosfomycin 3 g once and nitrofurantoin 100 mg twice daily for 7 days were shown to be more cost-effective. Conclusion Knowing local resistance levels is key to effective and cost-effective empirical prescribing. Recent estimates of trimethoprim resistance rates are close to 50%, in which case a single 3 g dose of fosfomycin is likely to be the most cost-effective treatment option.
This work was funded by Profile Pharma Ltd, a subsidiary of Zambon SpA.
This is the final version of the article. Available from Royal College of General Practitioners via the DOI in this record.
Vol. 1 (3), article BJGP-2017-0143