Comparison of the medical costs and effects of large traumatic eardrum perforations treatment.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the medical costs and effects of ofloxacin drops (OFLX), gelatin sponge patches, spontaneous healing, and endoscopic myringoplasty on healing in large tympanic membrane perforations (TMPs). METHODS: In total, 100 patients with large traumatic TMPs involving >50% of the eardrum were randomly assigned to OFLX, gelatin sponge, spontaneous healing, or endoscopic myringoplasty treatment groups. Medical costs, closure times, and closure rates were compared among groups at 6 months. RESULTS: The closure rates in the OFLX, gelatin sponge, spontaneous healing, and endoscopic myringoplasty groups were 95.7%, 82.6%, 58.3%, and 91.7%, respectively (P = 0.05). The mean closure time was 13.73 ±â€¯6.14 days in the OFLX group, 15.89 ±â€¯4.95 days in the gelatin sponge group, 48.36 ±â€¯10.37 days in the spontaneous healing group, and 12 days in the endoscopic myringoplasty group (P < 0.001). The mean medical costs in US dollars were $15.53 ±â€¯3.15, $103.64 ±â€¯111.58, $11.17 ±â€¯1.33, and $715.90 in the OFLX, gelatin sponge, spontaneous healing, and endoscopic myringoplasty groups, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although the gelatin sponge and myringoplasty treatments significantly shortened the closure time compared with spontaneous healing, the gelatin sponge patch did not significantly improve the closure rate, and the medical cost of myringoplasty was significantly higher than that of the other treatments. In contrast, OFLX significantly shortened closure time and had a higher closure rate than spontaneous healing, and the medical costs were lower than those of the gelatin sponge and myringoplasty procedures.

Treatment of tuberculosis in South Kazakhstan: clinical and economical aspects.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Since 1990, the tuberculosis incidence rate in Eastern Europe and post-Soviet republics has been increasing in many countries including Kazakhstan. This problem is particularly important in Kazakhstan regions with limited financial resources, among them - in South Kazakhstan province. The aim of this study was to investigate the main clinical and antibiotic-related economic aspects of tuberculosis treatment in South Kazakhstan province. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 502 patients participated in the study. They were hospitalized to the tuberculosis dispensary of Sayram district (South Kazakhstan province) in 2007-2013. Statistical analysis included logistic regression for better treatment outcomes and analysis of antibiotic treatment costs. RESULTS: Two-thirds of patients had infiltrative tuberculosis (67%). Positive treatment outcomes were determined in 85% of cases. The patients were mostly treated with cycloserine, protionamide, capreomycin, and ofloxacin. The majority of antibiotic costs were related to the treatment with capreomycin. In case of the positive results of the test for Mycobacterium tuberculosis, antibiotic expenses were almost 3 times greater than in case of negative test results (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients had extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. The negative results of the test for Mycobacterium tuberculosis at discharge were not related to pretreatment factors. Antibiotic-related costs were significantly higher in case of the positive results of the test of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, but were not associated with gender, residence place, hospitalization recurrence, or main blood test results before treatment.

[Infectious exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: prospects for high-dose levofloxacin therapy].

This open comparative randomized study of efficacy, safety, and pharmacoeconomic characteristics of hilifox-750 (750 mg daily for 5 days) and amoxiclav 2X (875/125 mg twice daily for 10 days) included 60 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Duration of the study was 6 months. Medians of age and smoking index in the group treated with hilifox-750 were 63.5 yr (59, 67) and 30 packs/yr (15, 60) respectively. The treatment reduced cough, apnea, sputum volume and pyoptysis with comparative rates of normalization of body temperature and peripheral leukocyte counts in both groups. Helifox-750 promoted decrease in coughing and apnea within the first three days of therapy. 28 (93%) and 26 (87%) patients recovered by day 4 of helifox and amoxiclav therapy (F-test p = 0.67). Both drugs showed comparable bacteriological efficacy. They were not different in terms of side effect frequency that were mild, resolved spontaneously and did not require withdrawal of therapy. Helifox had advantages over amoxiclav in that it reduced duration of antibacterial therapy to 5 days and of temporary incapacity to 12 days (vs 14); moreover, it needs to be taken only once daily.

Clinical and economic impact of a pharmacist-managed i.v.-to-p.o. conversion service for levofloxacin in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: A pharmacist-managed antibiotic intravenous to oral (i.v.-top. o.) conversion program has been incorporated to minimize unnecessary i.v. antibiotic usage. This study evaluated the clinical and economical impacts of a pharmacist-directed i.v.-to-p.o. conversion program for levofloxacin in Taiwan. METHODS: Data was retrospectively collected by chart review during the pre-intervention period (PIP). During the intervention proactive conversion period (PCP), pharmacists reviewed and intervened on all levofloxacin orders. The detailed reimbursements for medications and inpatient expenses from the Bureau of National Health Insurance (NHI), Taiwan were calculated. The clinical impacts during the PIP and PCP were compared with the duration of the i.v. levofloxacin therapy, total used i.v./p.o. ratio levofloxacin, and total length of hospital stay. The financial impact was compared with medication costs and total inpatient expenditures. RESULTS: The mean length of hospital stay was significantly decreased from 27.2 days to 16.1 days (p = 0.001) after the conversion program was implemented. The i.v. over p.o. ratio for DDD was 3.0 ± 0.6 vs. 2.1 ± 0.6 for PIP vs. PCP group (p = 0.032). The cost of the levofloxacin was significantly decreased ($ 568.9 ± 262.9 vs. $ 449.0 ± 266.4, PIP vs. PCP, p = 0.044). The total inpatient expenditures were also significantly reduced ($ 6,096 ± 5,164.0 vs. $ 3,649.6 ± 3, 740.4, PIP vs. PCP, p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacist-managed i.v.-to-p.o. conversion service not only decreased the length of hospital stays, but also produced significant cost savings, both on medication costs and the total inpatient expenditures. This represents strong evidence for implementing the i.v.-to-p.o. conversion service in Taiwan.

Empirical levofloxacin-containing versus clarithromycin-containing sequential therapy for Helicobacter pylori eradication: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Antimicrobial drug resistance is a major cause of the failure of Helicobacter pylori eradication and is largely responsible for the decline in eradication rate. Quadruple therapy has been suggested as a first-line regimen in areas with clarithromycin resistance rate >15%. This randomised trial aimed at evaluating the efficacy of a levofloxacin-containing sequential regimen in the eradication of H pylori-infected patients in a geographical area with >15% prevalence of clarithromycin resistance versus a clarithromycin containing sequential therapy. METHODS: 375 patients who were infected with H pylori and naïve to treatment were randomly assigned to one of the following treatments: (1) 5 days omeprazole 20 mg twice daily + amoxicillin 1 g twice daily followed by 5 days omeprazole 20 mg twice daily +clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily + tinidazole 500 mg twice daily; or (2) omeprazole 20 mg twice daily +amoxicillin 1 g twice daily followed by omeprazole 20 mg twice daily + levofloxacin 250 mg twice daily +tinidazole 500 mg twice daily; or (3) omeprazole 20 mg twice daily + amoxicillin 1 g twice daily followed by omeprazole 20 mg twice daily + levofloxacin 500 mg twice daily + tinidazole 500 mg twice daily. Antimicrobial resistance was assessed by the E-test. Efficacy, adverse events and costs were determined for each group. RESULTS: Eradication rates in the intention-to-treat analyses were 80.8% (95% CI, 72.8% to 87.3%) with clarithromycin sequential therapy, 96.0% (95% CI, 90.9%to 98.7%) with levofloxacin-250 sequential therapy, and 96.8% (95% CI, 92.0% to 99.1%) with levofloxacin-500 sequential therapy. No differences in prevalence of antimicrobial resistance or incidence of adverse events were observed between groups. Levofloxacin-250 therapy was cost-saving compared with clarithromycin sequential therapy. CONCLUSION: In an area with >15% prevalence of clarithromycin resistant H pylori strains, a levofloxacin containing sequential therapy is more effective, equally safe and cost-saving compared to a clarithromycin containing sequential therapy.

Doxycycline vs. levofloxacin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) affects 5-10 million adults annually in the United States with approximately 1.1 million hospitalizations. Current guidelines recommend fluoroquinolones as monotherapy for treatment of CAP in general medical wards and doxycycline monotherapy for outpatient therapy only. Fluoroquinolones are expensive and development of bacterial resistance to them has become a concern. Therefore, we studied whether doxycycline is as efficacious as levofloxacin in treatment of CAP in general medical wards. METHODS: In this prospective double-blinded trial, non-pregnant adults with clinical and radiological evidence of pneumonia requiring hospitalization were enrolled. Patients who were septic, hypoxic requiring intubations, nursing home residents, diagnosed with severe hepatic or renal dysfunction, recently hospitalized or immunocompromised were excluded from the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to either i.v. levofloxacin 500 mg daily or doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. After discharge, patients were followed for 2 months. RESULTS: There were 30 patients in the levofloxacin group and 35 patients in the doxycycline group. Groups were comparable in both clinical and laboratory profiles. Additionally, efficacy of treatment was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.844). Length of stay was 5.7 +/- 2.05 days in the levofloxacin group and 4.0 +/- 1.82 days in the doxycycline group (P < 0.0012). Failure rate was similar in both groups (P = 0.893). Total antibiotic cost was $122.07 +/- 15.84 for levofloxacin and $64.98 +/- 24.4 for doxycycline (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports doxycycline as an effective and economical alternative therapy for levofloxacin in the empirical treatment of CAP in general medical wards.

Hospital visits and costs following outpatient treatment of CAP with levofloxacin or moxifloxacin.

BACKGROUND: Hospital admissions (inpatient and emergency room) are a major source of medical costs for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) initially treated in the outpatient setting. Current CAP treatment guidelines do not differentiate between outpatient treatment with levofloxacin and moxifloxacin. OBJECTIVE: Compare health care resource use and medical costs to payers for CAP outpatients initiating treatment with levofloxacin or moxifloxacin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: CAP episodes were identified in the PharMetrics database between 2Q04 and 2Q07 based on: pneumonia diagnosis, chest X-ray and treatment with levofloxacin or moxifloxacin. Subsequent 30-day risk of pneumonia-related hospital visits and 30-day health care costs to payers for levofloxacin vs. moxifloxacin treatment were estimated after adjusting for pre-treatment demographics, health care resource use and pneumonia-specific risk factors using propensity score and exact factor matching. RESULTS: A total of 15,472 levofloxacin- and 6474 moxifloxacin-initiated CAP patients were identified. Among 6352 matched pairs, levofloxacin treatment was associated with a 35% reduction in the odds of pneumonia-related hospital visits (odds ratio = 0.65, P = 0.004), lower per-patient costs for pneumonia-related hospital visits (102 dollars vs. 210 dollars, P = 0.001), lower pneumonia-related total costs (medical services and prescription drugs, 363 dollars vs. 491 dollars, P < 0.001) and lower total costs (1308 dollars vs. 1446 dollars, P < 0.001) vs. moxifloxacin over the 30-day observation period. LIMITATIONS: Although observational analyses of claims data provide large sample sizes and reflect routine care, they do have several inherent limitations. Since randomization of subjects is not possible, adequate statistical techniques must be used to ensure that patient characteristics are well-balanced between treatment groups. In addition, data may be missing or miscoded. CONCLUSIONS: CAP outpatients initiated with levofloxacin generated substantially lower costs to payers compared to matched patients initiated with moxifloxacin. The cost savings for patients initiated with levofloxacin were largely attributable to reduced rates of pneumonia-related hospitalization or ER visits.

Comparative analysis of length of stay, total costs, and treatment success between intravenous moxifloxacin 400 mg and levofloxacin 750 mg among hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the length of stay (LOS), costs, and treatment consistency among patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) initially treated with intravenous (IV) moxifloxacin 400 mg or IV levofloxacin 750 mg. METHODS: Adults with CAP receiving IV moxifloxacin or IV levofloxacin for > or =3 days were identified in the Premier Perspective comparative database. Primary outcomes were LOS and costs. Secondary outcomes included treatment consistency, which was defined as 1) no additional IV moxifloxacin or levofloxacin after > or =1 day off study drug; 2) no switch to another IV antibiotic; and 3) no addition of another IV antibiotic. RESULTS: A total of 7720 patients met inclusion criteria (6040 receiving moxifloxacin; 1680 receiving levofloxacin). Propensity matching created two cohorts (1300 patients each) well matched for demographic, clinical, hospital, and payor characteristics. Before the patients were matched, mean LOS (5.87 vs. 5.46 days; P = 0.0004) and total costs per patient ($7302 vs. $6362; P < 0.0001) were significantly greater with moxifloxacin. After the patients were matched, mean LOS (5.63 vs. 5.51 days; P = 0.462) and total costs ($6624 vs. $6473; P = 0.476) were comparable in both cohorts. Treatment consistency was higher for moxifloxacin before (81.0% vs. 78.9%; P = 0.048) and after matching (82.8% vs. 78.0%; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital treatment of CAP with IV moxifloxacin 400 mg or IV levofloxacin 750 mg was associated with similar hospital LOS and costs in propensity-matched cohorts.

Limited efficacy of a nonrestricted intervention on antimicrobial prescription of commonly used antibiotics in the hospital setting: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Most interventions aimed at diminishing the use of antimicrobials in hospitals have focussed on newly introduced antibiotics and very few have been randomly controlled. We evaluated the impact on antibiotic consumption of an intervention without restrictions in antibiotic use, focussed on commonly used antibiotics with a controlled randomized trial. All new prescriptions of levofloxacin, carbapenems, or vancomycin in hospitalized patients were randomized to an intervention or a control group. Intervention consisted of an antibiotic regimen counselling targeted to match local antibiotic guidelines, performed using only patients' charts. Clinical charts of patients assigned to the control group were reviewed daily by a pharmacist. The primary endpoint was a reduction in consumption of the targeted antibiotics. Two hundred seventy-eight prescriptions corresponding to 253 patients were included: 146 were assigned to the intervention and 132 to the control group. Total consumption of the targeted antibiotics (median [IQR]) was slightly lower in the intervention (8 [4-12] defined daily doses [DDDs] per patient) than in the control group (10 [6-16] DDDs per patient; p = 0.04). No differences in number of DDDs were observed when antibiotics of substitution were included (11.05 [6-18.2] vs 10 [6-16.5] in the intervention and control groups, respectively, p = 0.13). The total number of days on treatment with the targeted antibiotics was lower in the intervention (4 [3-7] days per patient) than in the control group (6 [4-10] days per patient; p = 0.002). Differences in number of days on treatment only reached statistical significance in the prescriptions of carbapenems. There were no differences between intervention and control groups in terms of number of deaths, hospital readmissions, length of hospital stay, or antibiotic costs. In this trial, an intervention without restrictions focussed on antimicrobial prescriptions of commonly used antibiotics in the hospital setting had a limited efficacy to reduce consumption and did not save costs. Future strategies to promote a more rational antimicrobial use should be evaluated with a randomized controlled design.

A comparison of levofloxacin and moxifloxacin use in hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) patients in the US: focus on length of stay.

OBJECTIVE: Length of stay (LOS) and hospitalization costs were compared among patients admitted for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and initially treated with either levofloxacin 750 mg intravenous (IV) or with moxifloxacin 400 mg IV. Hospital-related complications and relationship of LOS and comorbidities were descriptively examined. METHODS: A retrospective database study was conducted of adult patients admitted for CAP and given levofloxacin 750 mg IV or moxifloxacin 400 mg IV through the first 3 days of hospitalization, using the Premier Perspective comparative database. Cohorts were matched 1:1 by hospital geographic location, by coarse caliper propensity scores using all baseline covariates, and by Mahalanobis metric matching based on age and severity (All Patient Refined-Diagnosis-related Groups Severity of Illness (APR-DRG SOI) index). Comparisons between groups were further adjusted for characteristics that remained imbalanced after matching using generalized estimating equation methodology. RESULTS: The initial sample of 3868 patients (levofloxacin = 827; moxifloxacin = 3041) was reduced to 1594 (797 patients per treatment group) after matching. Analyses of matched cohorts showed that the mean hospital LOS was significantly shorter for patients treated with levofloxacin 750 mg IV than for those patients treated with moxifloxacin 400 mg IV (5.8 vs. 6.4 days, respectively; least squares mean difference = 0.54 days; p = 0.020). Hospitalization costs were also lower for the levofloxacin 750 mg IV-treated patients (least squares mean difference = US$129; p = 0.753). There were no significant differences in the percentage of patients experiencing complications. LIMITATIONS: Although claims databases provide large sample sizes and reflect routine care, they do have several inherent limitations. Since randomization of subjects is not possible, adequate statistical techniques must be used to ensure treatment groups are balanced with respect to patient and clinical characteristics. In addition, data may be missing or miscoded. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study suggests that among patients hospitalized with CAP, initial treatment with levofloxacin 750 mg IV is associated with a significantly shorter mean hospital LOS compared with treatment with moxifloxacin 400 mg IV. The clinical implications of a shorter hospital LOS include improved patient and economic outcomes.

A cost-minimisation analysis comparing moxifloxacin with levofloxacin plus ceftriaxone for the treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia in Germany: results from the MOTIV trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study presents a cost-minimisation analysis of moxifloxacin compared to combination treatment with levofloxacin and ceftriaxone in patients hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in Germany. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the MOTIV study, 738 adult patients with CAP requiring hospitalisation and initial parenteral antibiotic therapy were randomised to sequential IV/oral therapy with either moxifloxacin (n = 368), or levofloxacin and ceftriaxone (n = 365). The primary effectiveness endpoint was the proportion of patients demonstrating clinical improvement 5-7 days after the completion of study treatment. Subgroup analysis considered patients with severe CAP according to pneumonia severity index (PSI) risk class IV and V, microbiologically proven infection, a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and a history of cardiovascular disease. The analysis included the cost of study medication, hospital stay, readmission and inpatient procedures and diagnostics. Event frequency in the study was multiplied by German unit costs to estimate per-patient expenditure. The analysis was conducted from a hospital perspective. Sensitivity analysis investigated the effect of costing from an insurer perspective. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the percentage of successfully treated patients. Average per patient cost was euro 2190 for the moxifloxacin group, and euro 2619 for the levofloxacin + ceftriaxone group (difference -euro 430, 95% CI: -euro 138, -euro 740; p < 0.05). Variability in total costs was wide, with some patients accruing up to euro 18,000. Medication cost was significantly lower with moxifloxacin than levofloxacin + ceftriaxone (-euro 470, 95% CI: -euro 522, -euro 421), and accounted for between 15 and 30% of total costs. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of patients hospitalised with CAP in Germany, treatment with moxifloxacin was significantly less costly than treatment with levofloxacin and ceftriaxone.

Treatment failure rates and health care utilization and costs among patients with community-acquired pneumonia treated with levofloxacin or macrolides in an outpatient setting: a retrospective claims database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics and fluoroquinolones are extensively used in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). OBJECTIVE: This analysis was conducted to compare treatment failure rates and health care utilization and cost outcomes among patients with CAP treated with levo-floxacin (500 or 750 mg) or macrolides (azithromycin, clarithromycin, or erythromycin) in an outpatient setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of claims data from a large US health plan. Patients were aged > or =18 years and had a primary diagnosis of CAP that was treated with oral levofloxacin or a macrolide in an outpatient setting (including physicians' offices, outpatient clinics, urgent care centers, and large ambulatory health centers). Patients were followed for 30 days after the index drug date to measure study outcomes. Multivariate regression analysis and a propensity score technique were used to compare rates of treatment failure and CAP-related health care utilization and costs. Two post hoc subgroup analyses were conducted in patients aged > or =50 and > or =65 years. RESULTS: Of the 7526 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 2968 (39.4%) were treated with levofloxacin and 4558 (60.6%) with a macrolide. Unadjusted rates of treatment failure were 21.1% and 22.7% in the levofloxacin and macrolide cohorts, respectively. After adjustment for demographic characteristics, baseline comorbidities, and severity of illness, levofloxacin recipients were significantly less likely to experience treatment failure than macrolide recipients (odds ratio [OR] = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94, P = 0.003). The likelihood of treatment failure was significantly lower in levofloxacin recipients aged > or =50 years (OR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.94; P = 0.007) and > or =65 years (OR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43-1.00; P = 0.049) compared with the corresponding subgroups of macrolide recipients. The magnitude of this difference was greatest in the subgroup aged > or =65 years, which had a 35% reduced risk of treatment failure compared with the corresponding group of macrolide-treated patients. The rate of CAP-related emergency department visits was significantly lower among patients receiving levofloxa-cin (OR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.91; P = 0.009); there were no differences in CAP-related hospitalizations or total CAP-related health care costs between levofloxa-cin and macrolide recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Multivariate-adjusted rates of treatment failure in outpatients with CAP were significantly lower in those treated with levofloxacin relative to those treated with a macrolide. The lower rates of treatment failure with levofloxacin were consistently observed across all patients and in the subgroups aged > or =50 and > or =65 years. Rates of emergency department visits were also significantly lower among levofloxacin-treated patients, whereas overall CAP-related hospitali-zations and costs did not differ significantly between the 2 treatment groups.

Cost-effectiveness of alternative outpatient pelvic inflammatory disease treatment strategies.

OBJECTIVE: Effectiveness differences between outpatient pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) treatment regimens are uncertain, but significant differences in cost exist. GOAL: To examine the influence of antibiotic costs on PID therapy cost-effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN: The authors used a Markov decision model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of recommended antibiotic regimens for PID and performed a value of information analysis to guide future research. RESULTS: Antibiotic costs vary between USD 43 and USD188. Pairwise comparisons, assuming a hypothetical 1% relative risk reduction in PID complications with the more expensive regimen, showed economically reasonable cost-effectiveness ratios. Value of information and sample size considerations support further investigation to detect 10% PID complication rate differences between regimens with >or=USD 50 cost differences. CONCLUSIONS: Within the cost range of recommended regimens, use of more expensive antibiotics would be economically reasonable if relatively small decreases in PID complication rates exist. Further investigation of effectiveness differences between regimens is needed.

An economic evaluation of two ototopical treatments for acute otitis media in tympanostomy tube patients.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this research was to determine the cost-effectiveness of ciprofloxacin 0.3%/dexamethasone 0.1% (CD) otic suspension versus ofloxacin 0.3% otic solution (OFX) for treatment of acute otitis media in tympanostomy tube patients. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to emulate the ototopical treatment of acute otitis media in patients with tympanostomy tubes. The economic outcome was the cost per otorrhea-free day (OFD) achieved per episode of care. Three tiers of antimicrobial therapy were modeled, with each successive tier representing the retreatment of clinical failures from the preceding tier. First-tier therapy compared CD and OFX using outcome measures obtained from a randomized clinical trial (n = 599). Second-tier therapy modeled the use of amoxicillin/clavulanate (ACA) using outcome measures obtained from a physician survey and medical literature. Third-tier therapy was modeled as pathogen-specific and curative. It could follow one of three pathways: 1) intramuscular ceftriaxone; 2) oral fluconazole; or 3) hospitalization for intravenous antibiotics. Third-tier outcomes were based on a physician survey. Cost data were obtained from standard references and presented from a payer perspective. RESULTS: The expected therapeutic costs were 249.40 dollars for the CD pathway and 265.44 dollars for the OFX pathway. The estimated number of OFDs per episode of care was 25.88 for the CD pathway and 23.86 for the OFX pathway. The cost-effectiveness ratios for CD and OFX therapies were 9.64 dollars and 11.13 dollars per OFD, respectively. CONCLUSION: CD is both more effective and less costly than OFX for the treatment of acute otitis media in patients with tympanostomy tubes.

Respiratory tract infections: at-risk patients, who are they? Implications for their management with levofloxacin.

At this symposium, the bacterial aetiologies of community-acquired pneumonia and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis were evaluated. By reviewing the clinical criteria for the identification of at-risk patients and the recommendations for antimicrobial drug selection in treatment guidelines, the role of levofloxacin in clinical practice was explored. In addition, consideration was also given to the economic impact of using levofloxacin in at-risk patients.

Respiratory tract infections: at-risk patients, who are they? Implications for their management with levofloxacin.

Two of the most serious respiratory tract infections are community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB). The most common pathogens found in patients with these infections are Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is also relatively common, particularly in elderly patients with AECB. S. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa are also of concern in relation to the development of resistance to antimicrobial drugs. The administration of antibiotics at doses that result in concentrations exceeding the mutant prevention concentration at the site of infection is one strategy to prevent the development of drug-resistant pathogens. AECB is associated with a high risk of in-hospital mortality, particularly in patients treated in the intensive care unit. CAP is also associated with significant risks and often requires treatment under hospital supervision. Several patient-related factors help identify those patients who are most at risk of mortality and morbidity. Treatment should be tailored towards the severity of the disease. The fluoroquinolones, such as levofloxacin, are an effective treatment option for AECB and CAP. Compared with many other antibiotics, resistance to levofloxacin remains low for most infecting pathogens. The oral bioavailability of levofloxacin is over 99%, enabling simple switching from intravenous to oral therapy during treatment. It is also preferentially distributed to compartments in the lung, thus achieving high concentrations at the site of respiratory tract infections. Combined with cover of the major infecting pathogens found in patients with AECB and CAP, and a cost-effective treatment compared with many alternative therapies, levofloxacin is an attractive option for the treatment of at-risk patients with these respiratory tract infections.

Moxifloxacin versus levofloxacin for treatment of acute rhinosinusitis: a retrospective database analysis of treatment duration, outcomes, and charges.

OBJECTIVE: Antibiotics are clinically indicated for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, but they may be prescribed inappropriately. This retrospective study examined how labeled recommendations for duration of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin treatment of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis compare with real-world practice, and compared the failure and recurrence rates, and associated charges. METHODS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The PharMetrics Patient-Centric claims database was searched over a 3-year period for episodes of acute rhinosinusitis treated within 5 days with moxifloxacin or levofloxacin. The duration of antibiotic treatment prescribed was compared with the labeled recommendation. Failure rates (a second antibiotic claim to treat acute rhinosinusitis within 30 days of the first claim), recurrence rates (subsequent antibiotic claims to treat any rhinosinusitis more than 30 days after the original or second [in the case of failure] claim), and treatment charges from the perspective of the payer (health insurer) were also compared using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The initial duration prescribed of moxifloxacin was shorter than for levofloxacin (-1.65 days, p < 0.0001), reflecting the shorter labeled recommendation (10 days versus 10-14 days). The durations of monotherapy (-2.06 days, p < 0.0001) and of all antibiotic treatment (-1.97 days, p < 0.0001) were also significantly shorter for episodes treated initially with moxifloxacin. The odds ratio for treatment failure (0.718; 95% confidence interval = 0.598-0.863; p = 0.0004) and the hazard ratio for recurrence (0.652; p = 0.0005) were both significantly lower for moxifloxacin than for levofloxacin, and resulted in lower total treatment charges (-$37.94 +/- 13.65; p = 0.0055). CONCLUSION: The shorter treatment durations seen for moxifloxacin in this database of real-world care reflect the label-recommended duration for acute rhinosinusitis. Despite this shorter duration of therapy, moxifloxacin resulted in better outcomes than levofloxacin in terms of the risk of treatment failure and recurrence. In addition, the total charges were lower for patients treated with moxifloxacin.