Impact and cost-effectiveness of the 6-month BPaLM regimen for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in Moldova: A mathematical modeling analysis.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that shortened, simplified treatment regimens for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (RR-TB) can achieve comparable end-of-treatment (EOT) outcomes to longer regimens. We compared a 6-month regimen containing bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid, and moxifloxacin (BPaLM) to a standard of care strategy using a 9- or 18-month regimen depending on whether fluoroquinolone resistance (FQ-R) was detected on drug susceptibility testing (DST). METHODS AND FINDINGS: The primary objective was to determine whether 6 months of BPaLM is a cost-effective treatment strategy for RR-TB. We used genomic and demographic data to parameterize a mathematical model estimating long-term health outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs in 2022 USD ($) for each treatment strategy for patients 15 years and older diagnosed with pulmonary RR-TB in Moldova, a country with a high burden of TB drug resistance. For each individual, we simulated the natural history of TB and associated treatment outcomes, as well as the process of acquiring resistance to each of 12 anti-TB drugs. Compared to the standard of care, 6 months of BPaLM was cost-effective. This strategy was estimated to reduce lifetime costs by $3,366 (95% UI: [1,465, 5,742] p < 0.001) per individual, with a nonsignificant change in QALYs (-0.06; 95% UI: [-0.49, 0.03] p = 0.790). For those stopping moxifloxacin under the BPaLM regimen, continuing with BPaL plus clofazimine (BPaLC) provided more QALYs at lower cost than continuing with BPaL alone. Strategies based on 6 months of BPaLM had at least a 93% chance of being cost-effective, so long as BPaLC was continued in the event of stopping moxifloxacin. BPaLM for 6 months also reduced the average time spent with TB resistant to amikacin, bedaquiline, clofazimine, cycloserine, moxifloxacin, and pyrazinamide, while it increased the average time spent with TB resistant to delamanid and pretomanid. Sensitivity analyses showed 6 months of BPaLM to be cost-effective across a broad range of values for the relative effectiveness of BPaLM, and the proportion of the cohort with FQ-R. Compared to the standard of care, 6 months of BPaLM would be expected to save Moldova's national TB program budget $7.1 million (95% UI: [1.3 million, 15.4 million] p = 0.002) over the 5-year period from implementation. Our analysis did not account for all possible interactions between specific drugs with regard to treatment outcomes, resistance acquisition, or the consequences of specific types of severe adverse events, nor did we model how the intervention may affect TB transmission dynamics. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to standard of care, longer regimens, the implementation of the 6-month BPaLM regimen could improve the cost-effectiveness of care for individuals diagnosed with RR-TB, particularly in settings with a high burden of drug-resistant TB. Further research may be warranted to explore the impact and cost-effectiveness of shorter RR-TB regimens across settings with varied drug-resistant TB burdens and national income levels.

Intracameral antibiotics during cataract surgery: efficacy, safety, and cost-benefit considerations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We summarize evidence-based considerations regarding the use of intracameral antibiotics during cataract surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of intraoperative intracameral antibiotics reduced the incidence of postcataract surgery endophthalmitis 3.5-fold, with an odds ratio ranging from 0.14 to 0.19. A survey of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery showed usage of intracameral injections of antibiotics increased by 16% in the United States between 2014 and 2021. The frequency of vancomycin usage has sharply dropped to 6%, while moxifloxacin is now the dominant choice at 83% among respondents. One analysis showed that 2500 patients need to be treated with intracameral antibiotics to prevent one case of endophthalmitis. A 500 µg intracameral moxifloxacin at $22 dollars per dose is cost-effective, including for patients with posterior capsular rupture (PCR). SUMMARY: Studies substantiate the safety and efficacy of intracameral antibiotics for endophthalmitis prophylaxis. Intracameral moxifloxacin and cefuroxime are the most common choices. While vancomycin shows potential for efficacy, further studies evaluating clinical outcomes are needed. Adverse events are rare and commonly due to errors in preparation. Topical antibiotics do not provide additional prophylactic benefits to intracameral regimens. Intracameral antibiotics given alone are cost-effective.

Comparing the sensitivity of cross-over and parallel study designs for QTc assessment: An analysis based on a single large study of moxifloxacin in 48 nonhuman primates.

The cardiovascular safety pharmacology (SP) study conducted to satisfy ICH S7A and S7B has commonly used a cross-over study design where each animal receives all treatments. In an increasing number of cases, cross-over designs are not possible and parallel studies have to be used. These can seldom be as large as 8 animals/treatment to match an n = 8 cross-over. Animals in parallel designs receive only one treatment. Parallel studies will have a different sensitivity to detect changes. This sensitivity is a critical question in using nonclinical QTc evaluations to support an integrated proarrhythmic risk assessment under the newly released ICH E14/S7B Q&As. The current analysis used a study large enough (n = 48) to be analyzed both as a parallel and as a cross-over design to directly compare the performance of the two experimental designs coupled to different statistical models, while all other study conduct aspects were the same. A total of 48 nonhuman primates (NHP) received 2 different treatments twice: vehicle, moxifloxacin (80 mg/kg), vehicle, moxifloxacin (80 mg/kg). Post-dose QTc interval data were recorded for 48 h for each treatment. Data were analyzed using 12 animals randomly selected for each treatment in a parallel design or as an n = 48 animal cross-over study. Different statistical models were used. The primary endpoint was the residual deviation (sigma) from the models applied to hourly time intervals. The sigma was used to determine the minimal detectable difference (MDD) for the study design-statistical model combination. Two statistical models were applicable to either study design. They gave similar sigma and resulting MDD values. In cross-over designs, the individual animal identification (ID) can be used in the statistical model. This enabled the smallest MDD value. Simple statistical models for analysis were identified: Treatment + Baseline for parallel designs and Treatment + ID for cross-over designs. The statistical sensitivity of NHP parallel study designs is reasonable (MDD for n = 6 of 12.7 ms), and in combination with testing exposures higher than likely to be necessary in man could be used in an integrated risk assessment. Where sensitivity of the NHP in vivo QTc assessment is critical, the cross-over design enabled a higher sensitivity (MDD 12.2 ms for n = 4; 8 ms for n = 8).

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.

Decision Analysis: Omadacycline Relative to Moxifloxacin Among Hospitalized Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Patients at Risk of Clostridioides difficile Infection.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Omadacycline is an aminomethylcycline antibiotic approved in the USA as once-daily intravenous/oral monotherapy for adults with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). Omadacycline demonstrated noninferiority to the fluoroquinolone moxifloxacin in a phase III CABP trial; adverse-event rates were similar between treatment groups except for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), which occurred in 2% of moxifloxacin-treated patients and 0% of patients on omadacycline. Conceptual healthcare-decision analytic models were developed to better understand the economic implications of antibiotic selection and CDI risk in acute-care facilities. METHODS: A conceptual healthcare-decision analytic model was created to estimate incremental costs associated with treating 100 hospitalized CABP patients with an initial 5-day inpatient regimen of omadacycline instead of moxifloxacin. The underlying model assumption was that treatment with omadacycline has the potential to reduce CDI events relative to moxifloxacin. The model included excess costs associated with each treatment group from admission through discharge. Attributable CDI cost per case in the moxifloxacin group varied from $15,000 to $45,000 (US$). Omadacycline acquisition cost was $300-600/day for 5 days. RESULTS: At a CDI attributable cost per case of $30,000 (base-case analyses), the incremental treatment cost (US$) per 100 patients ranged from $300,000 to $- 120,000 (cost savings). The excess CDI incidence in moxifloxacin-treated patients would need to be 5-10% for omadacycline to be cost-saving, assuming the attributable CDI cost is approximately $30,000. CONCLUSION: Targeted omadacycline use may reduce economic burden associated with hospitalized CABP patients treated with moxifloxacin if it can reduce excess cases of moxifloxacin-associated CDI.

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.

Informe diário de evidências COVID-19: busca realizada em 19 de junho de 2020 / COVID-19 daily evidence report: search conducted on June 19, 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 9 artigos e 6 protocolos.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of the pre-prescription of garenoxacin in comparison to moxifloxacin for low-risk febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of the pre-prescription of garenoxacin mesylate hydrate (GRNX) with that of moxifloxacin hydrochloride (MFLX) in the management of breast cancer patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia. METHODS: Data from female patients who had been instructed to take previously prescribed oral GRNX or MFLX for 3 days during adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy if their body temperature exceeded 38 °C were analyzed. This study compared the effectiveness between these fluoroquinolones using a propensity score matching analysis. RESULTS: The 330 patients received 1192 administrations of chemotherapy between May 2007 and April 2014 and 136 (41.2%) patients had a total of 212 (17.8%) febrile episodes. The frequencies of febrile episodes were 19.5% (113/579) and 16.2% (99/613) in the GRNX and MFLX groups, respectively. After propensity score matching, 384 episodes were matched in each group. Febrile events occurred in 80 and 56 cases in the GRNX and MFLX groups, respectively. Treatment success was identified in 80.0% (64/80) of cases in the GRNX group and 64.3% (36/56) of cases in the MFLX group (P = 0.0494). Additionally, the therapeutic use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor was 6.3% (5/80) of cases in the GRNX group and 17.9% (10/56) of cases in the MFLX group (P = 0.0498). There were few differences in the frequency of adverse effects between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the pre-prescription of GRNX may be a more effective option for the management of low-risk febrile neutropenia during adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Challenges in implementing and obtaining acceptance for J-Tpeak assessment as the clinical component of CiPA.

INTRODUCTION: This paper is based on a presentation held at the Annual Safety Pharmacology Society meeting in September 2017, at which challenges for the clinical component of CiPA were presented. FDA has published an automated algorithm for measurement of the J-Tpeak interval on a median beat from a vector magnitude lead derived from a 12-lead ECG. CiPA proposes that J-Tpeak prolongation < 10 ms can be used for drugs with a QTc effect < 20 ms to differentiate between safe and unsafe delayed repolarization and to reduce the level of ECG monitoring in late stage clinical trials. METHODS: We applied FDA's algorithm, complemented with iCOMPAS, to moxifloxacin and dolasetron data from the IQ-CSRC study with 9 subjects on active and 6 on placebo. The effect on QTcF and corrected J-Tpeak (J-Tpeak_c) was analyzed using concentration-effect modeling. RESULTS: There was a good correlation between QTcF and J-Tpeak_c prolongation after oral dosing of 400 mg moxifloxacin with placebo-adjusted, change-from-baseline (ΔΔ) J-Tpeak_c of ~12 ms at concentrations that caused ΔΔQTcF of ~20 ms. On dolasetron, J-Tpeak_c was highly variable, no prolongation was seen and an effect on ΔΔJ-Tpeak_c > 10 ms could be excluded across the observed plasma concentration range. DISCUSSION: In this limited analysis performed on the IQ-CSRC study waveforms using FDA's automated algorithm, J-Tpeak prolongation was observed on moxifloxacin, but not on dolasetron, despite clinical observations of proarrhythmias with both drugs. Challenges for the implementation of the J-Tpeak interval as a replacement or complement to the QTc interval, include to demonstrate that the proposed clinical algorithm using a J-Tpeak threshold of 10 ms, can be used to categorize drugs with a QT effect up to ~20 ms as having low pro-arrhythmic risk.

Improving treatment outcome assessment in a mouse tuberculosis model.

Preclinical treatment outcome evaluation of tuberculosis (TB) occurs primarily in mice. Current designs compare relapse rates of different regimens at selected time points, but lack information about the correlation between treatment length and treatment outcome, which is required to efficiently estimate a regimens' treatment-shortening potential. Therefore we developed a new approach. BALB/c mice were infected with a Mycobacterium tuberculosis Beijing genotype strain and were treated with rifapentine-pyrazinamide-isoniazid-ethambutol (RpZHE), rifampicin-pyrazinamide-moxifloxacin-ethambutol (RZME) or rifampicin-pyrazinamide-moxifloxacin-isoniazid (RZMH). Treatment outcome was assessed in n = 3 mice after 9 different treatment lengths between 2-6 months. Next, we created a mathematical model that best fitted the observational data and used this for inter-regimen comparison. The observed data were best described by a sigmoidal Emax model in favor over linear or conventional Emax models. Estimating regimen-specific parameters showed significantly higher curative potentials for RZME and RpZHE compared to RZMH. In conclusion, we provide a new design for treatment outcome evaluation in a mouse TB model, which (i) provides accurate tools for assessment of the relationship between treatment length and predicted cure, (ii) allows for efficient comparison between regimens and (iii) adheres to the reduction and refinement principles of laboratory animal use.