Cost-Effectiveness of Co-Amoxiclav Versus Clindamycinin the Treatment of Uncomplicated Soft Tissue Infections in a Tertiary Care Hospital
Keywords:
Clindamycin, Co-amoxiclav, Costeffectiveness, Soft Tissue Infections, Tertiary Care HospitalAbstract
Background: Soft Tissue Infections (STIs) pose a significant health care burden, ranging from mild conditions, such as cellulitis, to severe infections, including necrotizing fasciitis. Co-amoxiclav and Clindamycin are commonly used for the treatment of uncomplicated STIs; however, comparative cost-effectiveness data in tertiary care settings are limited. Aim: To compare the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of co-amoxiclav vs clindamycin in treating uncomplicated soft tissue infections in a tertiary care hospital. Methodology: A prospective interventional study was conducted on 150 patients with uncomplicated STIs. Patients were equally assigned to receive either co-amoxiclav 625mg TID or clindamycin 300 mg TID for 5-7 days. Clinical responses (cure, improvement, failure) were assessed during and after treatment. Cost-effectiveness analysis included direct drug costs and expenses related to managing adverseevents. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS. Results: Baseline demographic and clinical variables were comparable between groups (p>0.05). Co-amoxiclav was found to be more effective than clindamycin in clinical outcomes. The overall treatment costs were also notably higher in the clindamycin group, mainly due to increased antibiotic expenses, and non-medical costs were also higher with clindamycin, while other cost categories remained similar between the groups. Conclusion: Co-amoxiclav demonstrates increased clinical effectiveness among patients with uncomplicated soft tissue infections. Moreover, treatment with clindamycin in curs significantly higher costs, driven by antibiotic expenses and income loss, as well as increased medical and non- medical costs. Therefore, co-amoxiclav is a more cost-effective and clinically effective option for managing uncomplicated infections, especially in resource-limited healthcare settings.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Pre and Para Clinical Specialities
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
1. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, Dellinger EP, Goldstein EJ, Gorbach SL, Hirschmann JV, Kaplan SL, Montoya JG, Wade JC. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the infectious diseases society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2014; 59(2):e10-e52. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciu296
2. Desu PK, Sri LG, Shankar S, Prasanna K, Rao V. Pharmacoeconomics: An overview. UJP. 2018; 7(4):1-6.
3. Janodia M, Patel A, Udupa N. Pharmacoeconomics and its applications- Emerging role in India. Value Health. 2014; 17(7):796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.468
4. Esposito S, Leone S, Noviello S. Epidemiology and microbiology of skin and soft tissue infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2008; 29(2):109-115. https://doi.org/10.1097/qco.0000000000000239
5. Teng C, Reveles KR, Ofoegbu OOO, Frei CR. Clostridium difficile infection risk with important antibiotic classes: An analysis of the FDA adverse event reporting system. Int J Med Sci. 2019; 16(5):630-635. PMID: 31217729. PMCID: PMC6566741. https://doi.org/10.1097/10.7150/ijms.30739
6. Davey PG, Parker SE, Crombie IK, Jaderberg M. The cost effectiveness of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid as antibacterial prophylaxis in abdominal and gynaecological surgery. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995; 7(4):347-356. PMID: 10172460. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199507040-00008
7. Tancawan AL, Pato MN, Abidin KZ, Asari AM, Thong TX, Kochhar P, Muganurmath C, Twynholm M, Barker K. Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid for the treatment of odontogenic infections: A randomised study comparing efficacy and tolerability versus clindamycin. Int J Dent. 2015; 2015(1):472470. PMID: 26300919. PMCID: PMC4537712. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/472470
8. Tandon T, Dubey AK, Srivastava S, Manocha S, Arora E, Hasan N. A pharmacoeconomic analysis to compare the cost-effectiveness of metformin plus teneligliptin with metformin plus glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019; 8(3):955-959. PMID: 31041232. PMCID: PMC6482796. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_22_19
9. Musaraj A, Musaraj A, Dervishi A. Pharmaco-economics analysis, as a strategy for facilitating choices between health and non-health programs in the establishment of the national health care system. Alex J Med. 2014; 50(1):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajme.2013.06.001
10. Moellering RC. Current treatment options for communityacquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008; 46(7):1032-1037. PMID: 18444820. https://doi.org/10.1086/529445
11. Pham TT, Gariani K, Richard JC, Kressmann B, Jornayvaz FR, Philippe J, Lipsky BA, Uckay I. Moderate to severe soft tissue diabetic foot infections: A randomized, controlled, pilot trial of post- debridement antibiotic treatment for 10 versus 20 days. Ann Surg. 2022; 276(2):233-238. PMID: 35623048. PMCID: PMC9259031. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005205
12. Mahakit P, Vicente JG, Butt DI, Angeli G, Bansal S, Zambrano D. Oral clindamycin 300 mg BID compared with oral amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 1 g BID in the outpatient treatment of acute recurrent pharyngotonsillitis caused by group A β-hemolytic streptococci: An international, multicenter, randomized, investigator-blinded, prospective trial. Clin Ther. 2006; 28(1):99-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2006.01.006
13. Pusponegoro EH, Wiryadi BE. Clindamycin and cloxacillin compared in the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections. Clin Ther. 1990; 12(3):236-241. PMID: 2379228.
