Efficacy of Intracameral Moxifloxacin Endophthalmitis Prophylaxis at Aravind Eye Hospital.

PURPOSE: To compare the rate of postoperative endophthalmitis before and after initiation of intracameral (IC) moxifloxacin for endophthalmitis prophylaxis in patients undergoing cataract surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective, clinical registry. PARTICIPANTS: All charity and private patients (116 714 eyes) who underwent cataract surgery between February 15, 2014, and April 15, 2015, at the Madurai Aravind Eye Hospital were included. Group 1 consisted of 37 777 eyes of charity patients who did not receive IC moxifloxacin, group 2 consisted of 38 160 eyes of charity patients who received IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis, and group 3 consisted of 40 777 eyes of private patients who did not receive IC moxifloxacin. METHODS: The electronic health record data for each of the 3 groups were analyzed, and the postoperative endophthalmitis rates were statistically compared. The cost of endophthalmitis treatment (groups 1 and 2) and the cost of IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis (group 2) were calculated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative endophthalmitis rate before and after initiation of IC moxifloxacin endophthalmitis treatment cost. RESULTS: Manual, sutureless, small incision cataract surgery (M-SICS) accounted for approximately all of the 75 937 cataract surgeries in the charity population (97%), but only a minority of the 40 777 private surgeries (21% M-SICS; 79% phacoemulsification). Thirty eyes in group 1 (0.08%) and 6 eyes in group 2 (0.02%) were diagnosed with postoperative endophthalmitis (P < 0.0001). The group 3 endophthalmitis rate was 0.07% (29 eyes), which was also higher than the second group's rate (P < 0.0001). There were no adverse events attributed to IC moxifloxacin in group 2. The total cost of treating the 30 patients with endophthalmitis in group 1 was virtually identical to the total combined cost in group 2 of routine IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis and treatment of the 6 endophthalmitis cases. CONCLUSIONS: Routine IC moxifloxacin prophylaxis achieved a highly significant, 4-fold reduction in postoperative endophthalmitis in patients undergoing M-SICS. Compared with previous studies, having such a high volume of patients undergoing surgery during a relatively short 14-month time period strengthens the conclusion. This study provides further evidence that moxifloxacin is an effective IC prophylactic antibiotic and suggests that IC antibiotics should be considered for M-SICS and phacoemulsification.

Potential burden of antibiotic resistance on surgery and cancer chemotherapy antibiotic prophylaxis in the USA: a literature review and modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The declining efficacy of existing antibiotics potentially jeopardises outcomes in patients undergoing medical procedures. We investigated the potential consequences of increases in antibiotic resistance on the ten most common surgical procedures and immunosuppressing cancer chemotherapies that rely on antibiotic prophylaxis in the USA. METHODS: We searched the published scientific literature and identified meta-analyses and reviews of randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials (allocation done on the basis of a pseudo-random sequence-eg, odd/even hospital number or date of birth, alternation) to estimate the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing infections and infection-related deaths after surgical procedures and immunosuppressing cancer chemotherapy. We varied the identified effect sizes under different scenarios of reduction in the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis (10%, 30%, 70%, and 100% reductions) and estimated the additional number of infections and infection-related deaths per year in the USA for each scenario. We estimated the percentage of pathogens causing infections after these procedures that are resistant to standard prophylactic antibiotics in the USA. FINDINGS: We estimate that between 38·7% and 50·9% of pathogens causing surgical site infections and 26·8% of pathogens causing infections after chemotherapy are resistant to standard prophylactic antibiotics in the USA. A 30% reduction in the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for these procedures would result in 120,000 additional surgical site infections and infections after chemotherapy per year in the USA (ranging from 40,000 for a 10% reduction in efficacy to 280,000 for a 70% reduction in efficacy), and 6300 infection-related deaths (range: 2100 for a 10% reduction in efficacy, to 15,000 for a 70% reduction). We estimated that every year, 13,120 infections (42%) after prostate biopsy are attributable to resistance to fluoroquinolones in the USA. INTERPRETATION: Increasing antibiotic resistance potentially threatens the safety and efficacy of surgical procedures and immunosuppressing chemotherapy. More data are needed to establish how antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations should be modified in the context of increasing rates of resistance. FUNDING: DRIVE-AB Consortium.

Cost-effectiveness of standard vs intensive antibiotic regimens for transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy prophylaxis.

UNLABELLED: Multiple studies have shown an increase in the hospital admission rates due to infectious complications after transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx), mostly related to a rise in the prevalence of fluoroquinolone-resistant organisms. As a result, multiple series have advocated the use of more intensive prophylactic antibiotic regimens to augment the effect of the widely used fluoroquinolone prophylaxis for TRUSBx. The present study compares the cost-effectiveness fluoroquinolone prophylaxis to more intensive prophylactic antibiotic regimens, which is an important consideration for any antibiotic regimen used on a wide-scale for TRUSBx prophylaxis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of fluoroquinolones vs intensive antibiotic regimens for transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSBx) prophylaxis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Risk of hospital admission for infectious complications after TRUSBx was determined from published data. The average cost of hospital admission due to post-biopsy infection was determined from patients admitted to our University hospital ≤1 week of TRUSBx. A decision tree analysis was created to compare cost-effectiveness of standard vs intensive antibiotic prophylactic regimens based on varying risk of infection, cost, and effectiveness of the intensive antibiotic regimen. RESULTS: Baseline assumption included cost of TRUSBx ($559), admission rate (1%), average cost of admission ($5900) and cost of standard and intensive antibiotic regimens of $1 and $33, respectively. Assuming a 50% risk reduction in admission rates with intensive antibiotics, the standard regimen was slightly less costly with average cost of $619 vs $622, but was associated with twice as many infections. Sensitivity analyses found that a 1.1% risk of admission for quinolone-resistant infections or a 54% risk reduction attributed to the more intensive antibiotic regimen will result in cost-equivalence for the two regimens. Three-way sensitivity analyses showed that small increases in probability of admission using the standard antibiotics or greater risk reduction using the intensive regimen result in the intensive prophylactic regimen becoming substantially more cost-effectiveness even at higher costs. CONCLUSION: As the risk of admission for infectious complications due to TRUSBx increases, use of an intensive prophylactic antibiotic regimen becomes significantly more cost-effective than current standard antibiotic prophylaxis.

Nitrofurantoin compares favorably to recommended agents as empirical treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections in a decision and cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the costs of nitrofurantoin use compared to those of other antibiotics recommended for treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a decision analysis model to perform cost-minimization and sensitivity analyses to determine the level of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) and fluoroquinolone resistance that would favor the use of nitrofurantoin as a first-line empirical treatment of uncomplicated UTIs. The model used a program perspective to evaluate costs. RESULTS: Nitrofurantoin was cost-minimizing when the prevalence of fluoroquinolone resistance exceeded 12% among uropathogens or the prevalence of TMP-SMX resistance exceeded 17%. On 2-way sensitivity analysis, variables that had a significant impact on our cost-minimization threshold included cost of antibiotics and probability of clinical cure with antibiotics. CONCLUSION: From a payer perspective, nitrofurantoin appears to be a reasonable alternative to TMP-SMX and fluoroquinolones for empirical treatment of uncomplicated UTIs, especially given the current prevalence of antibiotic resistance among community uropathogens. On the basis of efficacy, cost, and low impact on promoting antimicrobial resistance, clinicians should consider nitrofurantoin as a reasonable alternative to TMP-SMX and fluoroquinolones for first-line therapy for uncomplicated UTIs.

Topical otic antibiotics: clinical cochlear ototoxicity and cost consideration.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the incidence of clinical cochlear ototoxicity in routine use of Cortisporin after ventilation tube placement. Cost differential between use of Cortisporin and fluoroquinolone agents was evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective review of 500 patients was performed. Cortisporin otic suspension was used for 5 days following ventilation tube insertion. RESULTS: Testing following surgery indicated a sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in 19 (2.1%) ears. The SNHL existed prior to the surgery and there was no deterioration in the hearing postoperatively. The total cost for our study group who used Cortisporin was $15,500. If Floxin had been prescribed the cost would have been $45,000. Had Ciprodex been prescribed, the cost would have been $49,500. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates no clinical cochlear ototoxicity in children who received Cortisporin following ventilation tube placement. The cost differential for prescribing fluoroquinolone drops is significant. EBM RATING: C-4.

Point: fluoroquinolone-based antibacterial chemoprophylaxis in neutropenic cancer patients works for defined outcomes in defined populations, but must be used wisely.

Fluoroquinolone-based antibacterial chemoprophylaxis administered in situations in which the prevalence of fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli is low (< 3% to 5%) can reliably reduce the risk for invasive gram-negative bacillary infection, and, if supplemented by gram-positive agents such as rifampin, penicillin, or macrolides, can reduce the risk of developing invasive infections caused by gram-positive microorganisms, including Viridans streptococci and coagulase-negative staphylococci. In the published literature, fluoroquinolone-based chemoprophylaxis does not reliably reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenic episodes, neutropenic episode-related mortality, or physician-initiated systemic antimicrobial prescribing behavior. Prophylaxis should only be prescribed in defined patient populations from the first day of cytotoxic therapy until neutrophil regeneration in environments in which the prevalence of gram-negative bacillary resistance to the prophylaxis strategy is low. Small phase II clinical trials suggest that empirical antibacterial therapy of unexplained fevers in neutropenic patients receiving effective fluoroquinolone-based prophylaxis under defined epidemiologic circumstances may be safely discontinued early. Better discriminators of infection in febrile neutropenic patients are needed.