Efficacy And Cost-Effectiveness, Comparison Of 7-Days Vonoprazan Versus 14-Days Esomeprazole Based Triple Therapies For Treating Helicobacter Pylori Infection In Pakistani Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is a gram-negative bacterium which usually resides in the mucoid lining of the stomach and may cause different gastric pathologies e.g., Gastritis, peptic ulcer disease, adenocarcinoma of the gastric system and mucoid associated lymphoma (MALT). The Objective was to compare the effect of 7-days Vonoprazan based triple therapy and 14-days Esomeprazole based triple therapy on eradication rate, compliance and cost effectiveness in Helicobacter pylori infected patients. Methods: This clinical trial was performed in the Department of Pharmacology Army Medical College, National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS) in collaboration with the Gastroenterology Department, Pak Emirates Military Hospital (PEMH) Rawalpindi from December 2022 to March 2023. A total of one hundred and twenty-two patients with dyspepsia symptoms and yielding lab results positive for Helicobacter pylori by stool antigen test were enrolled in the study. They were randomly allocated into two groups. The Esomeprazole group received 14 days of triple therapy orally with Esomeprazole 20 mg twice a day; Amoxicillin 1000 mg twice a day; and Levofloxacin 500 mg one time a day. The comparative Vonoprazan group was given 7-days triple therapy orally with Vonoprazan 20 mg twice a day; Amoxicillin 1000 mg twice a day; and Levofloxacin 500 mg one time a day. Eradication success was evaluated by stool antigen test four weeks later, as counted from the start of treatment. compliance and cost-effectiveness of both therapies were also assessed. Results: The eradication rate was (95.1%) in the Vonoprazan group with 58 out of 61 patients negative for H. pylori and (93.1%) in Esomeprazole group with 54 patients out of 58 yielding a negative result demonstrating p-value of 0.64. Compliance was 95.0% in the Esomeprazole group with p-value of 0.07. Cost effective ratio for Vonoprazan triple therapy was lower (731.8PKR) than the Esomeprazole group. Conclusion: One two-week Vonoprazan regimen demonstrated improved eradication rate, good compliance, and better tolerability in patients with less cost and a half duration of treatment in comparison with two weeks Esomeprazole regimen, attesting that one week Vonoprazan therapy is more cost efficacious in producing better results.

Development and Assessment of a Novel Whole-Gene-Based Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing Assay for Detecting the Susceptibility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to 14 Drugs.

Targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) has emerged as an alternative method for detecting drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB). To provide comprehensive drug susceptibility information and to address mutations missed by available commercial molecular diagnostics, we developed and evaluated a tNGS panel with 22 whole-gene targets using the Ion Torrent platform to predict drug resistance to 14 drugs, namely, rifampicin (RIF), isoniazid (INH), ethambutol (EMB), pyrazinamide (PZA), moxifloxacin (MFX), levofloxacin (LFX), amikacin (AMK), capreomycin (CM), kanamycin (KM), streptomycin (SM), bedaquiline (BDQ), clofazimine (CFZ), linezolid (LZD), and delamanid (DLM). We selected 50 and 35 Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates with various DR profiles as the training set and the challenge set, respectively. Comparative variant analyses of the DR genes were performed using Sanger sequencing and whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Phenotypic drug susceptibility testing (pDST) results were used as gold standards. Regarding the limit of detection, the tNGS assay detected 2.9 to 3.8% minority variants in 4% mutant mixtures. The sensitivity and specificity of tNGS were 97.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 93.1 to 98.7%) and 99.1% (95% CI = 97.7 to 99.7%), respectively. The concordance of tNGS with pDST was 98.5% (95% CI = 97.2 to 99.2%), which was comparable to that of WGS (98.7%, 95% CI = 97.4 to 99.3%) and better than that of Sanger sequencing (96.9%, 95% CI = 95.3 to 98.0%). The agreement between tNGS and pDST was almost perfect for RIF, INH, EMB, MFX, LFX, AMK, CM, KM, SM, BDQ, and LZD (kappa value = 0.807 to 1.000) and substantial for PZA (kappa value = 0.791). Our customized novel whole-gene-based tNGS panel is highly consistent with pDST and WGS for comprehensive and accurate prediction of drug resistance in a strengthened and streamlined DR-TB laboratory program. IMPORTANCE We developed and validated a tNGS assay that was the first to target 22 whole genes instead of regions of drug resistance genes and comprehensively detected susceptibility to 14 anti-TB drugs, with great flexibility to include new or repurposed drugs. Notably, we demonstrated that our custom-designed Ion AmpliSeq TB research panel platform had high concordance with pDST and could significantly reduce turnaround time (by approximately 70%) to meet a clinically actionable time frame. Our tNGS assay is a promising DST solution for providing needed clinical information for precision medicine-guided therapies for DR-TB and allows the rollout of active pharmacovigilance.

Economic Evaluation of Nemonoxacin, Moxifloxacin and Levofloxacin in the Treatment of Early Community-Acquired Pneumonia with Possible Pulmonary Tuberculosis.

The Chinese community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) Diagnosis and Treatment Guideline 2020 recommends quinolone antibiotics as the initial empirical treatment options for CAP. However, patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) are often misdiagnosed with CAP because of the similarity of symptoms. Moxifloxacin and levofloxacin have inhibitory effects on mycobacterium tuberculosis as compared with nemonoxacin, resulting in delayed diagnosis of PTB. Hence, the aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of nemonoxacin, moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in the treatment of CAP and to determine the value of these treatments in the differential diagnosis of PTB. Primary efficacy data were collected from phase II-III randomized, double-blind, multi-center clinical trials comparing nemonoxacin to moxifloxacin (CTR20130195) and nemonoxacin to levofloxacin (CTR20140439) for the treatment of Chinese CAP patients. A decision tree was constructed to compare the cost-utility among three groups under the perspective of healthcare system. The threshold for willingness to pay (WTP) is 1-3 times GDP per capita ($11,174-33,521). Scenarios including efficacy and cost for CAP patients with a total of 6% undifferentiated PTB. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of basic analysis. The costs of nemonoxacin, moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin were $903.72, $1053.59, and $1212.06 and the outcomes were 188.7, 188.8, and 188.5 quality-adjusted life days (QALD), respectively. Nemonoxacin and moxifloxacin were dominant compared with levofloxacin, and the ICER of moxifloxacin compared with nemonoxacin was $551,643, which was much greater than WTP; therefore, nemonoxacin was the most cost-effective option. Regarding patients with PTB who were misdiagnosed with CAP, taking nemonoxacin could save $290.76 and $205.51 when compared with moxifloxacin and levofloxacin and resulted in a gain of 2.83 QALDs. Our findings demonstrate that nemonoxacin is the more economical compared with moxifloxacin and levofloxacin, and non-fluoroquinolone antibiotics are cost-saving and utility-increasing compared to fluoroquinolones in the differential diagnosis of PTB, which can help healthcare system in making optimal policies and help clinicians in the medication of patients.

Clinical Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Moxifloxacin as Initial Treatment for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Meta-Analysis and Economic Evaluation.

PURPOSE: Moxifloxacin and levofloxacin are currently recommended as empirical initial treatment options for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in China according to guidelines. Most studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in treating CAP as initial empirical treatment were single-centered trials assessing different clinical end points. In addition, there is limited research investigating moxifloxacin's clinical benefits in the context of health care resource utilization and reimbursement from the payer's perspective in China. Hence, this study was aimed at comparing the clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin by conducting a meta-analysis and assessing their economic value from the China payer's perspective through a cost-utility analysis model. METHODS: For the meta-analysis, 6 bibliographic databases were searched for relevant publications from January 2000 to August 2020, and studies were assessed for eligibility under predetermined criteria. Meta-analysis was performed by using a random effects model when analyses included >2 trials. For the economic evaluation, a decision-tree model was constructed to investigate the cost-utility of moxifloxacin versus levofloxacin as initial regimens in the treatment of CAP inpatients. Parameter values were derived from meta-analysis, published literature, and clinician survey. The outcome was reported in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were undertaken to assess the robustness of the model. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated that the clinical response rate at the test-of-cure visit with initial treatment of moxifloxacin was significantly higher than that of levofloxacin (3441 patients; random effects model; I2 = 49%; odds ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 2.35-4.77; P < 0.001). In terms of the safety profile, total adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups (2770 patients; random effects model; I2 = 40%; odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.06; P = 0.11). Output of the cost-utility model showed that under the willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time China gross domestic product per capita, moxifloxacin is dominant over levofloxacin, being less costly and more efficacious (0.002 quality-adjusted life year gained, CNY 844 [US$131] saved in total cost, negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). Sensitivity analyses indicated the robustness of the model as moxifloxacin remained dominant when model parameter values fluctuated. IMPLICATIONS: Moxifloxacin is more efficacious than levofloxacin as the initial empirical treatment for CAP. In addition, treatment of CAP with moxifloxacin instead of levofloxacin is expected to be cost-saving from the perspective of payers in China. However, for the cost-utility analysis, in the absence of a national representative database on costs for hospitalization in China, inputs in the cost-utility model could be underestimated or overestimated due to estimating errors applied to both treatment arms.

Levofloxacin based non-rifampicin anti-tuberculous therapy: An effective alternative in renal transplant recipients in resource limited setting.

INTRODUCTION: Rifampicin is one of the most effective components of anti-tuberculous therapy (ATT). Since rifampicin is a hepatic enzyme (CYP3A4) inducer, in a post-renal transplant recipient, the dose of calcineurin inhibitors needs to be up-regulated and frequently monitored. In resource-limited (low- and lower-middle-income countries) setting this is not always feasible. Therefore, we evaluated a non-rifampicin-based ATT using levofloxacin in kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the medical records of renal transplant recipients diagnosed with tuberculosis in our institute between 2014 and 2017. After a brief discussion with patients regarding the nature and course of ATT, those who opted for a non-rifampicin based therapy due to financial constraints were included in the study and followed for a minimum of 6 months period after the completion of ATT. RESULTS: Out of the 550 renal transplant recipients, 67 (12.2%) developed tuberculosis after a median period of 24 (1-228) months following transplantation, of them, 64 patients opted for non-rifampicin-based ATT. The mean age was 37.6 years. Only 25% were given anti-thymocyte globulin based induction, while the majority (56; 87.5%) of them were on tacrolimus-based triple-drug maintenance therapy. Extrapulmonary tuberculosis was noted in 33% of cases, while 12 (18.7%) had disseminated disease. The median duration of treatment was 12 months and the cure rate of 93.7% (n = 60) was achieved at the end of therapy. CONCLUSION: Levofloxacin based ATT appears to be a safe and effective alternative of rifampicin in kidney transplant recipients who cannot afford heightened tacrolimus dosage.

Levofloxacin prophylaxis in hospitalized children with leukemia: A cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Infections are common and are a major cause of morbidity and mortality during treatment of childhood leukemia. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of levofloxacin antibiotic prophylaxis, compared to no prophylaxis, in children receiving chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). PROCEDURES: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from the perspective of the single-payer health care system using a lifetime horizon. A comprehensive literature review identified available evidence for effectiveness, safety, costs of antibiotic prophylaxis in children with leukemia, and health utilities associated with the relevant health states. The effects of levofloxacin prophylaxis on health outcomes, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and direct health costs were derived from a combined decision tree and state-transition model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the sensitivity of results to parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: The literature review revealed one randomized controlled trial on levofloxacin prophylaxis in childhood AML and relapsed ALL, by Alexander et al, that showed a significant reduction in rates of fever and neutropenia (71.2% vs 82.1%) and bacteremia (21.9% vs 43.4%) with levofloxacin compared to no prophylaxis. In our cost-utility analysis, levofloxacin prophylaxis was dominant over no prophylaxis, resulting in cost savings of $542.44 and increased survival of 0.13 QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, levofloxacin prophylaxis was dominant in 98.8% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis suggests that levofloxacin prophylaxis, compared to no prophylaxis, is cost saving in children receiving intensive chemotherapy for AML or relapsed ALL.

Susceptibility-guided quadruple therapy is not superior to medication history-guided therapy for the rescue treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: In this study we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two personalized rescue therapies for Helicobacter pylori infection. METHODS: An open-label, single-center, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Patients who had failed one or two regimens for H. pylori infection were randomized to receive a 14-day bismuth-containing quadruple therapy guided by antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) or personal medication history (PMH). In the AST group, either two of amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole or levofloxacin were prescribed according to the AST. In the PMH group, amoxicillin plus either levofloxacin or furazolidone were prescribed based on the patient's history of quinolone use. The primary outcomes were eradication rates confirmed by an urea breath test 6 weeks after treatment. The secondary outcomes were adherence, incidence of adverse events (AE) and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Altogether 164 with a positive culture received AST-guided therapy and 192 received PMH-guided therapy, respectively. Both AST- and PMH-guided therapies achieved comparable eradication rate (intention-to-treat analysis: 78.10% vs 74.29%, P = 0.42; per-protocol analysis: 87.10% vs 88.64%, P = 0.80). The AST clarithromycin regimen had a lower per-protocol eradication rate than the levofloxacin (75.47% vs 96.30%, P = 0.03) or furazolidone-containing regimen (75.47% vs 92.75%, P = 0.02). Both groups had high compliance with low incidences of AE, and PMH-guided therapy had a lower medical cost. CONCLUSIONS: AST-guided therapy was not superior to PMH-guided therapy as a second- or third-line treatment for H. pylori infection. Considering the cost-effectiveness, PMH therapy is clinically more favorable.

Assessment of the risk of musculoskeletal adverse events associated with fluoroquinolone use in children: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics has been restricted in children because of their potential to cause adverse musculoskeletal events. This study was performed to systematically evaluate whether there is a difference between fluoroquinolone and non-fluoroquinolone antibiotics in terms of their associated risk of adverse musculoskeletal events in children. METHODS: Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases were used to retrieve studies related to fluoroquinolone and non-fluoroquinolone-induced musculoskeletal adverse events in children. A meta-analysis was performed using Stata 11. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were included in the analysis. The combined results showed that there was no statistical difference between fluoroquinolone and non-fluoroquinolone groups in terms of musculoskeletal adverse events in children (risk ratio = 1.145, 95% confidence interval = 0.974 - 1.345, P = .101). Subgroup analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Here, the effects on the trovafloxacin and levofloxacin groups were significantly different from that of the control group. However, musculoskeletal adverse events due to either drug was not reported after long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that fluoroquinolone and non-fluoroquinolone antibiotics were not different in terms of their ability to cause musculoskeletal adverse events in children. For this reason, fluoroquinolone antibiotics can be used in children as appropriate. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019133900.

Bedaquilina para pacientes com tuberculose resistentes à rifampicina, multirresistentes e extensivamente resistentes a medicamentos / Bedaquiline for tuberculosis-resistant patients rifampicin, multi-resistant and extensively resistant to medicines

INTRODUÇÃO: A tuberculose (TB), conhecida anteriormente como tísica, é uma doença que pode ser causada por sete espécies do gênero do complexo Mycobacterium sendo a mais importante, do ponto de vista de saúde pública, a M. tuberculosis. Globalmente cerca de 10 milhões de pessoas tiveram TB no ano de 2018. No Brasil, em 2018, foram diagnosticados 72.788 casos novos de TB o que representa uma incidência de 34,8 casos por 100 mil habitantes. A TB pode ser classificada como pulmonar e extrapulmonar, sendo a primeira forma mais prevalente. Além disso, a TB pode ser classificada conforme a resistência à medicamentos, tais como: RR-TB, MDR-TB e XDR-TB. PERGUNTA DE PESQUISA: A bedaquilina (BDQ) associada ao tratamento padrão para pacientes adultos com RR-TB, MDR-TB ou XDR-TB, é mais eficaz, efetiva e segura comparado ao tratamento padrão utilizado pelo SUS (levofloxacino, moxifloxacino, amicacina, capreomicina, etionamida, terizidona, linezolida, clofazimina, pirazinamida, etambutol, isoniazida, rifampicina e paraminossalicílico) ou placebo? TECNOLOGIA: Bedaquilina (Sirturo®). EVIDÊNCIAS CIENTÍFICAS: A revisão sistematizada recuperou nove estudos (uma revisão sistemática [RS] com meta-análise em rede [network meta-analysis - NMA], um ensaio clínico randomizado [ECR] com dois relatos e sete estudos de coorte [seis retrospectivas e uma prospectiva]). A RS, com NMA, avaliou a BDQ em comparação aos medicamentos delamanida, metronidazol, moxifloxacino e levofloxacino. A RS avaliou os desfechos conversão de cultura do escarro e aceitabilidade, e não foram verificados resultados estatisticamente significantes. Os estudos de coorte avaliaram a BDQ em comparação aos mais diversos tratamentos disponíveis para RR-TB, MDR-TB e XDR-TB. As coortes avaliaram os seguintes desfechos: sobrevida sucesso no tratamento, tratamento completo, cura, conversão da cultura do escarro e mortalidade. Os resultados não foram estatisticamente significantes na meta-análise de modelo de efeitos randomizados para todos os desfechos avaliados, porém os resultados dos efeitos fixos demostraram resultados estatisticamente significantes favorecendo o tratamento com BDQ em comparação ao tratamento sem BDQ. Vale salientar que foram realizadas análises de subgrupos com o ECR, TMC207, que avaliou eficácia e segurança da BDQ associado ao tratamento padrão em comparação ao grupo placebo associado ao tratamento padrão em até 120 semanas para os desfechos de conversão da cultura do escarro, cura e segurança (mortalidade), porém não mudaram a direção dos resultados nas duas modelagem da meta-análise. AVALIAÇÃO ECONÔMICA (AE): Os tratamentos com BDQ comparado aos tratamentos do SUS mostraram-se dominados na avaliação de custo-efetividade, para o desfecho paciente curado. Assim, os tratamentos do SUS para RR-TB, MDR-TB e XDR-TB dominaram todos os tratamentos com BDQ, ou seja, todos os tratamentos com BDQ foram menos efetivos e mais caros que os tratamentos do SUS para obter a cura dos indivíduos com RR-TB, MDR-TB e XDR-TB. AVALIAÇÃO DE IMPACTO ORÇAMENTÁRIO (AIO): A AIO, para os pacientes com RR-TB, variou entre um custo incremental R$ 936 mil no caso base a uma economia de -R$ 1 milhão ao final do quinto ano no cenário alternativo; para MDR-TB variou entre uma economia de -R$44 mil no caso base a um gasto de R$ 110 mil ao final do quinto ano no cenário alternativo; e para XDR-TB variou entre um custo incremental de R$ 188 mil no caso base a R$ 4 mil no cenário alternativo ao final do quinto ano. MONITORAMENTO DO HORIZONTE TECNOLÓGICO (MHT): Cinco medicamentos foram detectados no MHT para pacientes com MDR-TB e XDR-TB (canamicina, cicloserina, sutezolida, pretomanide e protionamida). CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS: Há resultados conflitantes nas evidências encontradas no relatório. O ECR, analisado como de alto risco de viés (Risk of Bias 2.0) mostrou que a BDQ associada ao tratamento padrão é eficaz em comparação ao grupo de tratamento placebo associado ao tratamento padrão, porém com maior número de mortes e episódios de náusea em comparação ao grupo de tratamento sem a BDQ. Os resultados da RS, com NMA, de qualidade moderada, não demonstraram diferenças estatisticamente significantes entre as tecnologias avaliadas. Os resultados das meta-análises dos estudos de coorte de baixa qualidade metodológica (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), em combinação com o ECR da BDQ, foram demonstrados em efeitos fixos e randomizados. Os desfechos sucesso no tratamento, tratamento completo, cura, conversão da cultura do escarro e mortalidade não foram estatisticamente significantes no modelo de efeito randomizados na meta-análise. No entanto, foram estatisticamente significantes no modelo de efeito fixos da metaanálise, e favoreceram o tratamento com BDQ em comparação aos pacientes não tratados sem BDQ. A AE demonstrou que os tratamentos com BDQ foram dominados em relação aos tratamentos disponibilizados no SUS sem BDQ, para o desfecho paciente tratado, sendo, portanto, mais custosos e menos efetivos. A AIO, para pacientes com RR-TB, variou entre R$ 936 mil no caso base a uma economia de -R$ 1 milhão no cenário alternativo ao final do quinto ano, para MDRTB variou entre uma economia de -R$44 mil no caso base a um custo de R$ 110 mil ao final do quinto ano no cenário alternativo e para XDR-TB variou entre um custo adicional de R$ 188 mil no caso base a um custo adicional de R$ 4 mil ao final do quinto ano no cenário alternativo. RECOMENDAÇÃO PRELIMINAR DA CONITEC: A Conitec, em sua 87ª reunião ordinária, realizada nos dias 03 e 04 de junho de 2020, deliberou que a matéria fosse disponibilizada em consulta pública com recomendação preliminar favorável à incorporação no SUS da bedaquilina para pacientes com tuberculose resistente à rifampicina (RR-TB), a tuberculose multirresistente (MDR-TB) e para tuberculose extensivamente resistente a medicamentos (XDR-TB), condicionada ao monitoramento e apresentação dos dados de vida real, efetividade e segurança, da utilização da bedaquilina pela população brasileira e conforme critérios estabelecidos em protocolo do Ministério da Saúde. CONSULTA PÚBLICA: A Consulta Pública nº 24/2020 foi realizada entre os dias 22/06/2020 a 13/07/2020. Foram recebidas 66 contribuições no total, das quais 19 (29%) foram pelo formulário para contribuições técnico-científicas e 47 (71%) pelo formulário para contribuições sobre experiência ou opinião de pacientes, familiares, amigos ou cuidadores de pacientes, profissionais de saúde ou pessoas interessadas no tema. Das 19 contribuições de cunho técnico-científico, 95% submeteram a contribuição com opinião concordando totalmente com a recomendação preliminar da comissão. Apenas uma contribuição discordou da recomendação preliminar da Conitec, mas foi uma contribuição equivocada e se tratava de outro tema de consulta pública, portanto, foi excluída da análise. Das 47 contribuições recebidas sobre experiência ou opinião, apenas 15 foram analisadas, pois 32 estavam em branco, se tratavam de outro tema ou foram preenchidas inadequadamente. As 15 contribuições remanescentes concordaram 100% com a decisão preliminar da comissão. Após a apreciação das contribuições encaminhadas na consulta pública nº 24/2020, o plenário da Conitec considerou que: I) Foi apresentado um novo preço de USD 340 da bedaquilina pela Johnson & Johnson, sendo proposto um desconto de 15% no preço utilizado no relatório de recomendação preliminar (USD 400); II) Foram enviadas novas estimativas de incidência para pacientes com tuberculose multirresistente, bem como evidência de possíveis limitações na análise de impacto orçamentário; III) A nova análise de impacto orçamentário, utilizando os novos parâmetros enviados na consulta pública, aponta para economia de recursos na população com tuberculose multirresistente e um custo incremental com tuberculose resistente à rifampicina e tuberculose extensivamente resistente no cenário sem taxa de difusão gradual da bedaquilina (100% no primeiro ano de incorporação). No entanto, ao adotarmos o cenário com taxa difusão gradual da bedaquilina, 30% no primeiro ano de incorporação a 70% no quinto ano, os resultados mudam e proporcionam economia de recursos para pacientes com tuberculose resistente à rifampicina e um custo incremental para pacientes com tuberculose multirresistente e tuberculose extensivamente resistente. RECOMENDAÇÃO FINAL DA CONITEC: Os membros da Conitec presentes na 89ª reunião ordinária, no dia 05 de agosto de 2020, deliberaram por unanimidade recomendar a incorporação da bedaquilina para pacientes com tuberculose resistentes à rifampicina, multirresistentes e extensivamente resistente a medicamentos, condicionado a apresentação de dados de vida real e conforme preconizado pelo Ministério da Saúde. Foi assinado o Registro de Deliberação nº 538/2020. DECISÃO: Incorporar a bedaquilina para pacientes com tuberculose resistentes à rifampicina, multirresistentes e extensivamente resistente a medicamentos, condicionado a apresentação de dados de vida real e conforme preconizado pelo Ministério da Saúde, no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS, conforme Portaria nº 36, publicada no Diário Oficial da União nº 168, seção 1, página 77, em 01 de setembro de 2020.

Cost-effectiveness of levofloxacin prophylaxis against bacterial infection in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Infections are the leading cause of therapy-related mortality in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Although effectiveness of levofloxacin antibacterial prophylaxis in oncology patients is recognized, its cost-effectiveness is unknown. This study evaluated epidemiologic data regarding levofloxacin use and the cost-effectiveness of this strategy as the cost per bacteremia episode, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death avoided in children with AML. PROCEDURE: A retrospective cohort study using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database compared demographic and clinical characteristics and receipt of levofloxacin prophylaxis in children with AML admitted for chemotherapy from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2018. We then developed a decision analysis model in this population that compared costs associated with bacteremia, ICU admission, or death secondary to bacteremia to levofloxacin prophylaxis cost from a healthcare perspective. Time horizon is one chemotherapy cycle. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses evaluated model uncertainty. RESULTS: Prophylaxis cost $8491 per bacteremia episode prevented compared with an average added hospital cost of $119 478. Prophylaxis cost $81 609 per ICU admission avoided, compared with an average added hospital cost of $94 181. Prophylaxis cost $220 457 per death avoided. In sensitivity analysis, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per bacteremia episode avoided, prophylaxis remained cost-effective in 94.6% of simulations. Prophylaxis use was more common in recent years in patients with relapsed disease and with chemotherapy regimens considered more intensive. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis is cost-effective in preventing bacterial infections in patients with AML. Findings support increased use in patients considered at high risk of bacterial infection secondary to myelosuppression.

Informe diário de evidências COVID-19: busca realizada em 20 de maio de 2020 / COVID-19 daily evidence report: search conducted on May 20, 2020

O Informe Diário de Evidências é uma produção do Ministério da Saúde que tem como objetivo acompanhar diariamente as publicações científicas sobre tratamento farmacológico e vacinas para a COVID-19. Dessa forma, são realizadas buscas estruturadas em bases de dados biomédicas, referente ao dia anterior desse informe. Não são incluídos estudos pré-clínicos (in vitro, in vivo, in silico). A frequência dos estudos é demonstrada de acordo com a sua classificação metodológica (revisões sistemáticas, ensaios clínicos randomizados, coortes, entre outros). Para cada estudo é apresentado um resumo com avaliação da qualidade metodológica. Essa avaliação tem por finalidade identificar o grau de certeza/confiança ou o risco de viés de cada estudo. Para tal, são utilizadas ferramentas já validadas e consagradas na literatura científica, na área de saúde baseada em evidências. Cabe ressaltar que o documento tem caráter informativo e não representa uma recomendação oficial do Ministério da Saúde sobre a temática. Foram encontrados 16 artigos e 7 protocolos.

Evaluation of the Direct Economic Cost per Eradication Treatment Regimen against Helicobacter pylori Infection in Greece: Do National Health Policy-Makers Need to Care?

Helicobacter pylori (Hp) management has undoubtedly resulted in a notable economic burden on healthcare systems globally, including Greece. Its cost has never been estimated so far, especially during the recent 10-year unprecedented financial crisis. Direct medical and procedural costs for one attempt "outpatient" Hp eradication treatment were estimated as the following: (I) first-line regimens: 10 and 14 days standard triple, 10 and 14 days sequential, 10 and 14 days concomitant non-bismuth quadruple, 14 days hybrid, (II) second-line salvage regimens: 10 and 14 days levofloxacin-containing triple regimens. Treatment costs using prototypes and/or generic drugs were calculated. Drug prices were collected and confirmed from two official online medical databases including all medicines approved by the Greek National Organization for Medicines. Regimens based on generics were more affordable than prototypes and those including pantoprazole yielded the lowest prices (mean: 27.84 €). Paradoxically, 10-day concomitant and 14-day hybrid regimens (currently providing good (90-94%) first-line eradication rates in Greece) cost the same (mean: 34.76 €). The expenditures for Hp eradication treatment regimens were estimated thoroughly for the first time in Greece. These data should be taken into account by Public Health policymakers both in Greece and the European Union, aiming for a better and less expensive therapeutic approach.

Prophylactic levofloxacin to prevent infections in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma: the TEAMM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Myeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent serious infections. There are approximately 5500 new UK cases of myeloma per annum, and one-quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. Newly diagnosed patients may benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection. However, the use of prophylaxis has not been established in myeloma and may be associated with health-care-associated infections (HCAIs), such as Clostridium difficile. There is a need to assess the benefits and cost-effectiveness of the use of antibacterial prophylaxis against any risks in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess the risks, benefits and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic levofloxacin in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A central telephone randomisation service used a minimisation computer algorithm to allocate treatments in a 1 : 1 ratio. SETTING: A total of 93 NHS hospitals throughout England, Northern Ireland and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 977 patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised to receive levofloxacin or placebo tablets for 12 weeks at the start of antimyeloma treatment. Treatment allocation was blinded and balanced by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate and intention to give high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. Follow-up was at 4-week intervals up to 16 weeks, with a further follow-up at 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was to assess the number of febrile episodes (or deaths) in the first 12 weeks from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included number of deaths and infection-related deaths, days in hospital, carriage and invasive infections, response to antimyeloma treatment and its relation to infection, quality of life and overall survival within the first 12 weeks and beyond. RESULTS: In total, 977 patients were randomised (levofloxacin, n = 489; placebo, n = 488). A total of 134 (27%) events (febrile episodes, n = 119; deaths, n = 15) occurred in the placebo arm and 95 (19%) events (febrile episodes, n = 91; deaths, n = 4) occurred in the levofloxacin arm; the hazard ratio for time to first event (febrile episode or death) within the first 12 weeks was 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.86; p = 0.002). Levofloxacin also reduced other infections (144 infections from 116 patients) compared with placebo (179 infections from 133 patients; p-trend of 0.06). There was no difference in new acquisitions of C. difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Gram-negative organisms when assessed up to 16 weeks. Levofloxacin produced slightly higher quality-adjusted life-year gains over 16 weeks, but had associated higher costs for health resource use. With a median follow-up of 52 weeks, there was no significant difference in overall survival (p = 0.94). LIMITATIONS: Short duration of prophylactic antibiotics and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: During the 12 weeks from new diagnosis, the addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths without increasing HCAIs or carriage. Future work should aim to establish the optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and should involve the laboratory investigation of immunity, inflammation and disease activity on stored samples funded by the TEAMM (Tackling Early Morbidity and Mortality in Myeloma) National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation grant (reference number 14/24/04). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51731976. FUNDING DETAILS: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Myeloma is a type of cancer that develops from cells in the bone marrow, called plasma cells, which are part of the immune system. Because myeloma affects the immune system, people who have it are at greater risk of picking up infections. This risk is higher at the start of antimyeloma therapy when the myeloma is active. WHAT DID THE STUDY DO?: The trial looked to see if the risk of getting an infection can be reduced, rather than waiting to see if an infection developed and then treating it. An antibiotic already used all over the world, called levofloxacin was tested. Half of the patients (n = 489) took levofloxacin for 12 weeks and the other half (n = 488) were given a dummy tablet (placebo). The aim was to see if taking levofloxacin at the start of antimyeloma therapy reduced the risk of getting an infection. Alongside this, we evaluated three important groups of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to see whether or not the use of preventative levofloxacin increased the number of these resistant bacteria living in the body. In addition, the overall survival, economic impacts and the impact of using preventative antibiotics on patients' quality of life and response to antimyeloma treatment were evaluated. WHAT DID THE STUDY FIND?: During the 12 weeks from new diagnosis of myeloma, the addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment significantly reduced the number of febrile episodes and deaths [134 (febrile episodes alone, n = 112; febrile episodes plus death, n = 7; deaths alone, n = 15) out of 488 (27%) placebo patients vs. 95 (febrile episodes alone, n = 87; febrile episodes plus death, n = 4; deaths alone, n = 4) out of 489 (19%) levofloxacin patients; p = 0.002] without increasing antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Developing an antimicrobial stewardship program across a rural health system: The Avera Health experience.

PURPOSE: The stages of development of a health system-wide antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) using existing personnel and technology are described. SUMMARY: Small hospitals with limited resources may struggle to meet ASP requirements, particularly facilities without onsite infectious disease physicians and/or experienced infectious disease pharmacists. Strategies for ASP development employed by Avera Health, a 33-hospital health system in the Midwest, included identifying relevant drug utilization and resistance patterns, education and pathway development, and implementation of Web-based conferencing to provide pharmacists throughout the system with access to infectious disease expertise on a daily basis. These efforts resulted in an evolving single-system ASP that has leveraged existing resources to overcome some system barriers. Program outcomes to date include a reduction in the use of a targeted agent, improved pathogen susceptibility trends, and rates of hospital-associated Clostridium difficile infection below national benchmarks. CONCLUSION: The Avera Health ASP grew from a collaborative project targeting levofloxacin overuse and resistance among key bacteria to a formal, health system-wide ASP in a rural setting. This program used existing personnel to provide standardized processes, educational campaigns, and antimicrobial expertise through the use of technology. This ASP program may provide helpful examples of ASP strategies for other rural health systems with similar resources.

The Association of Antibiotic Stewardship With Fluoroquinolone Prescribing in Michigan Hospitals: A Multi-hospital Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Fluoroquinolones increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection and antibiotic resistance. Hospitals often use pre-prescription approval or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. Whether these strategies impact aggregate fluoroquinolone use is unknown. METHODS: This study is a 48-hospital, retrospective cohort of general-care, medical patients hospitalized with pneumonia or positive urine culture between December 2015-September 2017. Hospitals were surveyed on their use of pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization (fluoroquinolone stewardship). After controlling for hospital clustering and patient factors, aggregate (inpatient and post-discharge) fluoroquinolone (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) exposure was compared between hospitals with and without fluoroquinolone stewardship. RESULTS: There were 11 748 patients (6820 pneumonia; 4928 positive urine culture) included at 48 hospitals. All hospitals responded to the survey: 29.2% (14/48) reported using pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. After adjustment, fluoroquinolone stewardship was associated with fewer patients receiving a fluoroquinolone (37.1% vs 48.2%; P = .01) and fewer fluoroquinolone treatment days per 1000 patients (2282 vs 3096 days/1000 patients; P = .01), driven by lower inpatient prescribing. However, most (66.6%) fluoroquinolone treatment days occurred after discharge, and hospitals with fluoroquinolone stewardship had twice as many new fluoroquinolone starts after discharge as hospitals without (15.6% vs 8.4%; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based stewardship interventions targeting fluoroquinolone prescribing were associated with less fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization, but not at discharge. To limit aggregate fluoroquinolone exposure, stewardship programs should target both inpatient and discharge prescribing.

Economic evaluation of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis from the APPAC randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: An increasing amount of evidence supports antibiotic therapy for treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The objective of this study was to compare the costs of antibiotics alone versus appendicectomy in treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis within the randomized controlled APPAC (APPendicitis ACuta) trial. METHODS: The APPAC multicentre, non-inferiority RCT was conducted on patients with CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Patients were assigned randomly to appendicectomy or antibiotic treatment. All costs were recorded, whether generated by the initial visit and subsequent treatment or possible recurrent appendicitis during the 1-year follow-up. The cost estimates were based on cost levels for the year 2012. RESULTS: Some 273 patients were assigned to the appendicectomy group and 257 to antibiotic treatment. Most patients randomized to antibiotic treatment did not require appendicectomy during the 1-year follow-up. In the operative group, overall societal costs (€5989·2, 95 per cent c.i. 5787·3 to 6191·1) were 1·6 times higher (€2244·8, 1940·5 to 2549·1) than those in the antibiotic group (€3744·4, 3514·6 to 3974·2). In both groups, productivity losses represented a slightly higher proportion of overall societal costs than all treatment costs together, with diagnostics and medicines having a minor role. Those in the operative group were prescribed significantly more sick leave than those in the antibiotic group (mean(s.d.) 17·0(8·3) (95 per cent c.i. 16·0 to 18·0) versus 9·2(6·9) (8·3 to 10·0) days respectively; P < 0·001). When the age and sex of the patient as well as the hospital were controlled for simultaneously, the operative treatment generated significantly more costs in all models. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated appendicitis incurred lower costs than those who had surgery.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of oral versus intravenous drip infusion of levofloxacin in the treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infection in Chinese elderly patients.

AIM: Pharmacoeconomic cost-effectiveness analysis of two different dosage regimens of levofloxacin in the treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infection in elderly patients. METHODS: A total of 108 elderly patients with acute lower respiratory tract infection who visited by our hospital between September 2013 and September 2014 were randomly divided into Group A and Group B, with 54 patients in each group. In Group A, levofloxacin injection was given for continuous intravenous infusion treatment, whereas in Group B, levofloxacin injection and levofloxacin capsule were given as sequential therapy (ST). The period of treatment for both the groups was 10 days, and minimum cost analysis was used to analyze the treatment. RESULTS: Groups A and B had cure rates of 61.1% and 59.3% (P>0.05), effective rates of 88.9% and 83.3% (P>0.05), bacterial clearance rates of 96.3% and 92.6% (P>0.05), and incidence rates of adverse reactions of 7.4% and 3.7% (P>0.05), respectively. Treatment costs of Groups A and B were 1,588 RMB and 1,150 RMB, respectively, whereas the cost-effectiveness of the two groups was at 17.86 and 13.81, respectively (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Levofloxacin ST had relatively higher cost-effectiveness ratio for the treatment of acute lower respiratory tract infection in elderly patients, especially Chinese.

Pharmacodynamically Guided Levofloxacin Dosing for Pediatric Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND.: Oral levofloxacin is recommended as a preferred treatment for infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae with a penicillin minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of ≥4 µg/mL and as an alternative for infection with S pneumoniae with a penicillin MIC of ≤2 µg/mL. To investigate the current dosing recommendations and create a pharmacodynamically guided regimen, a Monte Carlo simulation was performed. METHODS.: The simulation included a previously published 1-compartment model, and incorporated a formula that takes into account age-appropriate weights for hospitalized patients. Three different dosing regimens, including community-acquired pneumonia guideline dosing, inhalational anthrax dosing, and a pharmacodynamically guided regimen, were assessed. The probability of target attainment was described as the proportion of patients who achieve an unbound-drug area under the concentration-time curve over 24 hours divided by the MIC above 33.7 µg/mL per hour. Microbiologic data from 2 stand-alone pediatric tertiary care centers were included. RESULTS.: Guideline-recommended doses of levofloxacin seem to produce suboptimal exposure in patients aged 5-14 years for pneumococci with an MIC of 1 µg/mL. Anthrax dosing was suboptimal in patients aged <5 years and in those aged >15 years. The pharmacodynamically guided regimen maintained a probability of target attainment of >90% for all age groups without producing peak concentrations higher than those previously described. None of the regimens attained the pharmacodynamic targets for a levofloxacin MIC of 2 µg/mL. CONCLUSIONS.: Current dosing recommendations were found to be suboptimal for specific age groups. A pharmacodynamically guided levofloxacin dosing regimen was determined, but it will need to be studied clinically for safety and tolerability.

Drug Susceptibility Assessment in Stenotrophomonas Maltophilia Strains Isolated From the Blood of Organ Transplantation Recipients in a Warsaw Teaching Hospital During 2011 to 2014.

BACKGROUND: Blood infections with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative carbapenem-resistant bacilli are particularly dangerous and challenging to treat in organ transplant recipients. Resistance to carbapenems may be acquired, for example, in Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas, or Acinetobacter spp. or innate, for example, in Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. The purpose of this study was to analyze blood infections caused by S maltophilia in organ transplant recipients and to compare drug susceptibility of these bacteria and the same species isolated from the blood of other inpatients. METHODS: A total of 26 S maltophilia strains isolated from blood samples of 26 patients (including 14 liver or kidney transplant recipients) hospitalized during 2011 to 2014 were evaluated in this study. Antibiotic susceptibility was determined via E-test and disk diffusion methods. RESULTS: Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strains isolated from blood exhibited sensitivity to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (100%), levofloxacin (96.2%), ciprofloxacin (92.3%), ticarcillin/clavulanic acid (80.8%), and ceftazidime (53.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Because appropriate antibiotic therapy in the case of S maltophilia differs from the standard empirical therapy administered in the case of most other Gram-negative bacilli, early identification of this pathogen is of particular significance. The use of antibiotics to which this pathogen is sensitive eliminates the infection and helps avoid graft loss.

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics and management of oropharyngeal tularemia outbreak.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with tularemia and the effectiveness of the administered treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated in our hospital between January 2009 and March 2011 and diagnosed with tularemia were evaluated retrospectively. Patients' epidemiological and clinical characteristics, administered treatments, and posttreatment findings were recorded on patient monitoring forms. RESULTS: At anamnesis, 29% of patients used water from wells and 71% used water from the network supply; moreover, 48.4% had a history of contact with animals and 87.1% a history of lethargy. At physical examination, 96.8% had a mass in the neck and 90.3% had fever. Gentamycin + doxycycline therapy was administered to 45.2% of patients, while levofloxacin, gentamycin, and streptomycin were used for the other patients. After treatment, neck masses persisted in 48.4% of patients and complaints of lethargy and fever in 6.5%. Treatment of these patients was initiated once tularemia had been diagnosed, as test results were announced about 3 weeks later. Lymphadenopathy excision was performed on 19.4% of patients in whom neck mass persisted. CONCLUSION: Appropriate empiric antibiotherapy should be commenced in patients presenting with neck mass, fever, and lethargy in regions with tularemia epidemics.