Interventions:
The interventions were reported clearly and in detail.
Effectiveness/benefits:
An overview of the clinical evidence rather than a systematic review of the literature was presented. As such, no mention was made of how the studies and guidelines were identified. The measure of benefit, antimicrobial activity of Gram-positive agents against Gram-positive cocci, did not describe the absolute health gains from the seven-day course of treatment that was valued.
Costs:
A very limited costing study, which included only those of the drugs under study, was performed. As a result the economic perspective was very narrow and did not include hospitalisation, side effects, and other important health care costs. The price year was not reported, which will hamper any future inflationary exercises.
Analysis and results:
The costs and benefits were not combined even though, in some cases, daptomycin treatment was more expensive than treatment with teicoplanin. The impact of the uncertainty in the results was not investigated. Given the limited costing and small series of patients included, the results of this study may not be widely generalisable. As the authors recommended in their conclusions, further clinical studies were required to validate these economic benefits.
Concluding remarks:
The study was not intended to be a full economic evaluation, but a basic cost-effectiveness assessment was made. A more thorough evaluation of health benefits and costs is required to make a sound cost-effectiveness statement.