Is Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Bacterial Endocarditis Cost-Effective?

Zia Agha, Richard P. Lofgren and Jerome V. VanRuiswyk
Additional contact information
Zia Agha: Division of General Internal Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Zablocki Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, zia@mcw.edu
Richard P. Lofgren: Division of General Internal Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin
Jerome V. VanRuiswyk: Division of General Internal Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Zablocki Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Medical Decision Making, 2005, vol. 25, issue 3, 308-320

Abstract: Background . Antibiotic prophylaxis for bacterial endocarditis is recommended by the American Heart Association (AHA) before undergoing certain dental procedures. Whether such antibiotic prophylaxis is cost-effective is not clear. The authors’ objective is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of predental antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with underlying heart disease. Methods . The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model to compare cost-effectiveness of 7 antibiotic regimens per AHA guidelines and a no prophylaxis strategy. The study population consisted of a hypothetical cohort of 10 million patients with either a high or moderate risk for developing endocarditis. Results . Prophylaxis for patients with moderate or high risk for endocarditis cost $88,007/quality-adjusted life years saved if clarithromycin was used. Prophylaxis with amoxicillin and ampicillin resulted in a net loss of lives. All other regimens were less cost-effective than clarithromycin. For 10 million persons, clarithromycin prophylaxis prevented 119 endocarditis cases and saved 19 lives. Conclusion . Predental antibiotic prophylaxis is cost-effective only for persons with moderate or high risk of developing endocarditis. Contrary to current recommendations, our data demonstrate that amoxicillin and ampicillin are not cost-effective and should not be considered the agents of choice. Clarithromycin should be considered the drug of choice and cephalexin as an alternative drug of choice. The current published guidelines and recommendations should be revised.

Keywords: bacterial endocarditis; chemoprevention; antibiotic prophylaxis; cost and cost analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05276852 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:3:p:308-320

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05276852

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().