Cost-Effectiveness of Co-Amoxiclav Versus Clindamycinin the Treatment of Uncomplicated Soft Tissue Infections in a Tertiary Care Hospital

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.