Cost-effectiveness comparison of sequential ofloxacin versus standard switch therapy

Direct costs in patients hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia after non-response to outpatient treatment with macrolide antibacterials in the US

INTRODUCTION

Antibacterial cost-containment programmes emphasise the use of narrow-spectrum generic agents whenever possible. The use of these agents is driven by their lower purchase prices; the consequences of treatment failure are rarely considered. This study was conducted to identify the costs of treating patients hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) associated with Streptococcus pneumoniae following failure to respond to outpatient treatment with macrolide antibacterials.

METHODS

A multicentre, retrospective, observational study was performed in patients with CAP due to S. pneumoniae who were admitted to 31 North American hospitals following a lack of response to >or=2 days of outpatient treatment with a macrolide antibacterial. Direct medical costs (year 2004 values) of infection-related hospital resources, including antibacterials (purchase, preparation, dispensing, administration and monitoring), diagnostic tests, therapeutic procedures, treatment of adverse events and therapeutic failures, and hospitalisation per diem (ward, critical care and ventilator days), were analysed. Total hospital costs were then compared with standard diagnosis-related group (DRG) reimbursement.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients were enrolled. Patients were frequently bacteraemic (52%) and infected with macrolide-resistant strains of S. pneumoniae (71%). Initial inpatient antibacterial treatment was not successful in 17 patients (14%) and seven patients (5.7%) died. The mean length of stay was 8.7 days (SD 7) including 1.3 days (SD 2.9) in a critical care unit and 1.4 days (SD 4.4) of mechanical ventilation. The mean cost of hospitalisation was US dollars 12,678 (SD 13 346) but standard DRG reimbursement averaged only US dollars 8,634.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who do not respond to outpatient treatment with a macrolide antibacterial and who are subsequently hospitalised with CAP caused by S. pneumoniae are likely to be infected with a non-susceptible strain, are frequently bacteraemic, are at an increased risk for mortality compared with previously published estimates in patients with CAP due to S. pneumoniae, and incur hospital costs that far exceed standard DRG reimbursement for CAP.

Fluoroquinolones vs beta-lactams for empirical treatment of immunocompetent patients with skin and soft tissue infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of fluoroquinolones with beta-lactams in the treatment of patients with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs).

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database, Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, and references of relevant articles for study reports published between January 1980 and February 2006.

RESULTS

Twenty randomized controlled trials that enrolled 4817 patients were included in the analysis. Fluoroquinolones as empirical treatment of patients with SSTIs were more effective than beta-lactams for the clinically evaluable patients (90.4% vs 88.2%; odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.66). This was also true in subset analyses of randomized controlled trials that studied ciprofloxacin (OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.45-4.26) and for patients with mild to moderate infections (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.13-2.96). In contrast, no difference was found between the compared regimens for patients with moderate to severe infections (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.80-1.55), for patients who did not receive third-generation cephalosporins as the comparator antibiotic (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73-1.34), or for the microbiologically evaluable patients (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89-1.59). Fluoroquinolones were also associated with more adverse effects (19.2% vs 15.2%; OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.57).

CONCLUSION

The high proportion of successfully treated patients in the compared groups of antibiotics and the development of more adverse effects associated with fluoroquinolone use suggest that these antibiotics do not have substantial advantages compared with beta-lactams for empirical treatment of patients with SSTIs.

Proton pump inhibitor formulary considerations in the acutely ill. Part 1: Pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, and available formulations

OBJECTIVE

To review important proton pump inhibitor (PPI) pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic principles in acutely ill patients, compare PPI formulation options for patients unable to swallow a tablet or capsule, and provide clinicians with guidance when making hospital formulary decisions with this class of agents.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1966-May 2005) and the Cochrane Library databases were searched using the key words proton pump inhibitor, acid suppression, peptic ulcer disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, stress ulcer prophylaxis, and critical illness. Bibliographies of cited references were reviewed, and a manual search of abstracts from recent gastroenterology, critical care, and surgery scientific meetings was completed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All articles identified from the data sources were evaluated, and all information deemed relevant was included for this review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

PPIs have become a mainstay for acute acid suppression in hospitalized patients over other therapeutic options. Various commercially available PPI products are available for administration, either enterally or parenterally, to patients unable to swallow a tablet or capsule. Newer oral PPI formulations offer numerous advantages over older products. The results of studies comparing the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of different PPI dosage forms and routes of administration are among the factors to consider when making formulary decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

While the introduction of new PPI products has expanded the therapeutic options for acid suppression in acutely ill patients, a number of unresolved questions remain surrounding the interchangeability of these products, the clinical significance of one PPI formulation over the other, and how oral/enteral PPI therapy should be used as step-down therapy after parenteral PPI therapy.

Evaluation of an antibiotic intravenous to oral sequential therapy program

AIM

This study was designed to analyse the drug consumption difference and economic impact of an antibiotic sequential therapy focused on quinolones.

METHOD

We studied the consumption of quinolones (ofloxacin/levofloxacin and ciprofloxacin) 6 months before and after the implementation of a sequential therapy program in hospitalised patients. It was calculated for each antibiotic, in its oral and intravenous forms, in defined daily dose (DDD/100 stays per day) and economical terms (drug acquisition cost). At the beginning of the program ofloxacin was replaced by levofloxacin and, since their clinical uses are similar, the consumption of both drugs was compared during the period.

RESULTS

In economic terms, the consumption of intravenous quinolones decreased 60% whereas the consumption of oral quinolones increased 66%. In DDD/100 stays per day, intravenous forms consumption decreased 53% and oral forms consumption increased 36%.

CONCLUSIONS

Focusing on quinolones, the implementation of a sequential therapy program based on promoting an early switch from intravenous to oral regimen has proved its capacity to alter the utilisation profile of these antibiotics. The program has permitted the hospital a global saving of 41420 dollars for these drugs during the period of time considered.

IV-to-oral switch therapy for community-acquired pneumonia requiring hospitalization: focus on gatifloxacin

The majority of the 1.1 million patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the United States begin therapy with an intravenous antibiotic. A switch to oral therapy as soon as patients are clinically stable reduces the length of hospitalization and associated costs. Fluoroquinolones are appropriate candidates for switch therapy. Gatifloxacin is an excellent choice when a fluoroquinolone is being considered for sequential switch therapy in the treatment of CAP requiring hospitalization.

Cost-effective approaches to the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in the era of resistance

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) infects upwards of four million people in the US each year, of which 20% require subsequent hospitalisation. Consequently, it is a large contributor to excessive healthcare resource consumption and cost. Since the aetiology of CAP is not identified in a majority of patients, treatment is often empiric, aimed at the most common causes, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and the atypical pathogens (Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydia pneumoniae and Legionella pneumophila). A variety of pharmaceutical agents exist for the treatment of CAP, most notably the cephalosporin and penicillin derivatives, the macrolide/azalide antibacterials, the newer tetracyclines, and most recently the respiratory fluoroquinolones. Choosing an agent is usually related to issues such as patient compliance, adverse event profiles, and the presence of resistance. Of these, resistance seems to be the main factor today. S. pneumoniae, the most common cause of CAP, is steadily acquiring resistance to a majority of the currently available antibacterials, thus further increasing costs due to prolonged hospitalisation, treatment of relapses and the use of more expensive antibacterials. Understanding and maximising the pharmacodynamic properties of the available antibacterials will not only prevent the emergence of resistance, thus prolonging their clinical utility, but also reduce the costs associated with treating the infection through rapid symptom improvement and earlier patient discharge. Numerous methods for reducing costs in patients with bacterial infections are documented in the literature and can be applied to CAP. Choosing monotherapy instead of combination therapy can reduce costs associated with the administration of the antibacterial. Agents with longer half-lives allow for once-daily administration, which in turn, leads to improved compliance, successful outcomes, and decreased costs. Administering antibacterials to maximise their pharmacodynamics, such as with continuous infusion of beta-lactams, reduces the amount of drug needed in addition to savings associated with administration and supplies. Finally, transitioning patients to oral therapy as soon as they are clinically stable can significantly reduce the length of hospital stay, which is the major contributing factor of healthcare costs. The use of a clinical pathway in an institution is the most effective way to apply these cost-saving approaches in the treatment of CAP. These pathways should be specific to each institution, thus considering the resistance rates in the area and encouraging the use of the most active, cost-effective agents to produce rapid, positive clinical outcomes.

Achieving a safe and early discharge for patients with community-acquired pneumonia

The rationale for achieving an early discharge for patients with CAP is that reduced length of stay can result in lower costs. When hospital discharge is premature, however, use of resources after discharge from the hospital may increase. This situation could increase overall cost and worsen quality of care. The objective should be to achieve a safe and early discharge. Several studies have evaluated methods for achieving this goal. Key findings from these studies are as follows: When a patient achieves clinical stability (e.g., systolic blood pressure, > or = 90 mm Hg; heart rate, < or = 100 beats/min; respiratory rate, < or = 24 breaths/min; temperature, < or = 38.3 degrees C [101 degrees F]; oxygen saturation, > or = 90%; able to eat; and stable mental status) or fulfills appropriate criteria (see Table 2), the patient may be eligible for switch from parenteral to oral antibiotics and early discharge. For many patients, this switch or discharge may occur on day 3 of hospitalization. When a patient is switched from parenteral to oral antibiotics, in many cases there does not appear to be a demonstrable clinical benefit to in-hospital observation. Elimination of in-hospital observation for patients who do not have an obvious reason for continued hospitalization potentially could reduce length of stay by 1 day. Improving efficiency of care reduces length of stay. This reduction may be accomplished by implementing clinical pathways, identifying and correcting causes of medically unnecessary hospital days, initiating early discharge planning, enlisting the services of a discharge coordinator, and organizing outpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment programs. These strategies are effective in many but not all patients, and their application should be tempered with careful clinical judgment.

Is more than one quinolone needed in clinical practice?

OBJECTIVE

To review clinical information on fluoroquinolone antimicrobials to distinguish between these agents and help define their place in clinical practice.

DATA SOURCES

Primary and review articles on fluoroquinolones available commercially in the US as of August 2000 were identified through MEDLINE (from 1993-August 2000) and secondary sources.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All pertinent, published, clinical trials for levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gatifloxacin were included. Minimal data were included for quinolones with restricted or limited uses, including trovafloxacin, sparfloxacin, enoxacin, and lomefloxacin. Due to the quantity of data on ciprofloxacin, only more recent or pivotal trials or articles summarizing data on specific infections were included. Relevant information was included if it was believed to assist in differentiating between the fluoroquinolones for infections for which these agents would most commonly be considered.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Fluoroquinolones are a potent class of intravenous and oral broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents used for treating a wide range of community-acquired and nosocomial infections. More than 10 quinolones have been approved for use; although some of these have been withdrawn from the market, numerous others are under investigation. It has become increasingly important to be able to differentiate between these agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in safety, antimicrobial spectrum of activity, and resistance development support the selective use of various fluoroquinolones in differing clinical situations.

Cost-effectiveness of Gatifloxacin vs Ceftriaxone With a Macrolide for the Treatment of Community-Acquired Pneumonia

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of sequential IV to oral gatifloxacin therapy vs IV ceftriaxone with or without IV erythromycin to oral clarithromycin therapy to treat community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) patients requiring hospitalization.

PATIENTS

Two hundred eighty-three patients enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial were eligible for inclusion in the cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS

Data collected included patient demographics, clinical and microbiological outcomes, length of stay (LOS), and antibiotic-related LOS (LOSAR). Costs evaluated include drug acquisition (level 1); plus costs of preparation, dispensing, and administration, treating adverse events, and clinical failures (level 2); plus hospital per diem costs (level 3). Robustness of economic findings was tested using sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Two hundred three patients were clinically and economically evaluable (98 receiving gatifloxacin and 105 receiving ceftriaxone). IV erythromycin was administered to 35 patients in the ceftriaxone-treated group. Oral conversion was achieved in 98% of patients in each group. Clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates did not differ statistically (98% and 97% with gatifloxacin vs 92% and 92% with ceftriaxone, respectively). Overall, neither geometric mean LOS nor LOSAR differed significantly (4.2 days and 4.1 days with gatifloxacin vs 4.9 days and 4.9 days with ceftriaxone, respectively). Treatment failures in the ceftriaxone group contributed to a mean incremental increase in LOSAR of 1.09 days and increased mean cost per patient. The geometric mean costs per patient (level 3) were $5,109 for gatifloxacin and $6,164 for ceftriaxone (p = 0.011). The cost-effectiveness ratios (mean cost per expected success) were $5,236:1 and $7,047:1 for gatifloxacin and ceftriaxone, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Gatifloxacin monotherapy for CAP patients requiring hospitalization is clinically effective and provides an economic advantage compared to the regimen of ceftriaxone with or without erythromycin IV with a switch to oral clarithromycin.

Clinical use of the fluoroquinolones

The appetite for modification to the basic quinolone nucleus has grown logarithmically since the first quinolone was employed in clinical practice. Important structural refinements have led to expanded microbiologic activity, optimal pharmacokinetics, and increased safety profiles. The practicing clinician and researcher may glean considerable information from the quinolone structure with regard to microbiologic spectra and safety before administering these agents to patients. Although some toxicities can be ominously predictable, such as with the so-called high-risk quinolones (e.g., double-halogenated and trifluorinated quinolones), clinicians must rely on animal models of toxicity and clinical trial data to discern other toxicities (e.g., Q-Tc interval prolongation). A few quinolones enjoy a relatively clean safety profile and are well tolerated (e.g., gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin). Other quinolones may be associated with significant collateral system toxicity during therapy; however, under certain conditions, albeit rare, their potential for benefit may outweigh the existing risk. Clinafloxacin, for use in the management of lung infections caused by multiply resistant B. cepacia in cystic fibrosis patients, is an example of a risk that may be outweighed by its therapeutic benefit. Because there are many treatment alternatives within the clinician's armamentarium, the obligation is to select the safest, most therapeutically effective, and most cost-effective agent that is available. In addition to increasing mortality and morbidity, the development of toxicity or an adverse event during therapy may compromise the immediate effectiveness of treatment as well as affect the cost of the patient's care significantly. With the immediate abundance of quinolones available for use, the safest, most effective, and best-tolerated agents will likely emerge as the most appropriate therapeutic choices when a quinolone is indicated.

Success rates and cost-effectiveness of antibiotic combinations for initial treatment of central-venous-line infections during total parenteral nutrition

BACKGROUND

Central-venous-line infections can be successfully treated with appropriate antibiotics, thus avoiding the need for catheter removal. Based on our experience, vancomycin, gentamicin, piperacillin, ceftazidime, and amphotericin, alone or in combination, are usually administered, pending sensitivity results. This empirical list, however, has never been verified against actual sensitivity results nor has it been tested for cost or efficacy.

METHODS

Medical records of inpatients on hyperalimentation over 1 year were reviewed. Success rate, therapy duration, and drug acquisition cost and charge were assessed for central-venous-line infections. Antibiotics then were paired and evaluated in terms of charge and efficacy against all microorganisms as determined by sensitivity results.

RESULTS

In 500 inpatients receiving hyperalimentation for 9,698 patient-days, 8.4 central-venous-line infections/1,000 patient-days occurred. Staphylococcus non-aureus, Candida species, Enterococcus faecium, and Staphylococcus aureus predominantly were isolated. Of the infections, 51 (67%) were sensitive to one or more of the initial antibiotics. A 2-week course of antibiotics successfully treated 50 (66%) catheter infections without line removal. Appropriate initial therapy on average reduced treatment duration by 8 to 10 days and drug charges by $400 to $700.

CONCLUSIONS

Amikacin-vancomycin appears to be the most cost-effective selection for presumed central-venous-line infections, pending sensitivity results, followed by valid alternatives. Lower failure rates are well worth the extra cost in pharmaceutical charges.

Basis of anti-infective therapy: pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic criteria and methodology for dual dosage individualisation

Antimicrobial therapy should be designed on the basis of microbiological, as well as pharmacokinetic, criteria; microbiological parameters provide information about the susceptibility of the pathogen responsible for the infectious process while pharmacokinetic parameters give information about the potential ability of the drug in question to reach and remain at the sites of infection in the body. Microbiological parameters such as the minimum inhibitory concentration, minimum bactericidal concentration, bacterial titre, bactericidal rate and 'post-antibiotic effect' (PAE) must be considered. Among the pharmacokinetic parameters, the maximum serum concentration at steady state (CmaxSS), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and length of time that the serum concentrations exceed a particular value are the most useful in this context. Different relationships between these parameters, known as efficacy indices, have been established to predict the potential efficacy of antibacterial therapy. Antimicrobial dosage individualisation should be based on the optimisation of the efficacy index that best correlates with patient response. It seems appropriate to establish the degree of correlation among the different efficacy indices and clinical response observed in patients by means of a correlation analysis. This type of analysis can be either retrospective or prospective and may be based on linear or maximum response models. Simulation of the plasma concentration curves obtained with the particular regimen administered offers a methodology which is easy to apply and provides the pharmacokinetic information necessary to calculate the different efficacy indices. Information about the susceptibility of the pathogen to the antibacterial in question and about the response to the treatment used is also necessary for the correlation analysis. This type of analysis determines which of the indices is best correlated with efficacy and, hence, is the index to be optimised when attempting to individualise antibacterial therapy for different situations.