Household Costs Associated with Hospitalization of Children with Severe Pneumonia in Quito, Ecuador.

Pneumonia remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in young children. The total cost of pneumonia-related hospitalization, including household-level cost, is poorly understood. To better understand this burden in an urban setting in South America, we incorporated a cost study into a trial assessing zinc supplements in treatment of severe pneumonia among children aged 2-59 months at a public hospital in Quito, Ecuador, which provides such treatment at no charge. Data were collected from children's caregivers at hospitalization and discharge on out-of-pocket payments for medical and nonmedical items, and on employment and lost work time. Analyses encompassed three categories: direct medical costs, direct nonmedical costs, and indirect costs, which covered foregone wages (from caregivers' self-reported lost earnings) and opportunity cost of caregivers' lost time (based on the unskilled labor wage in Ecuador). Caregivers of 153 children completed all questionnaires. Overall, 57% of children were aged less than 12 months, and 46% were female. Just over 50% of mothers and fathers had completed middle school. Most reported direct costs, which averaged $33. Most also reported indirect costs, the mean of which was $74. Fifty-seven reported lost earnings (mean = $79); 29 reported lost time (estimated mean cost = $37). Stratified analyses revealed similar costs for children < 12 months and ≥ 12 months, with variations for specific items. Costs for hospital-based treatment of severe pneumonia in young children represent a major burden for households in low- to middle-income settings, even when such treatment is intended to be provided at no cost.

Fluoroquinolones in the management of community-acquired pneumonia in primary care.

A literature search was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of the respiratory fluoroquinolones (gemifloxacin, levofloxacin and moxifloxacin) and their efficacy and safety in the management of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Data show that CAP is a common presentation in primary care practice, and is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, particularly in the elderly. Although the causative pathogens differ depending on treatment setting and patient factors, Streptococcus pneumoniae is the primary pathogen in all treatment settings. As a class, the respiratory fluoroquinolones have a very favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile. Pharmacodynamic criteria suggest that moxifloxacin and gemifloxacin are more potent against S. pneumoniae, which may have the added benefit of reducing resistance selection and enhancing bacterial eradication. The respiratory fluoroquinolones are also generally well tolerated, and are first-line options for outpatient treatment of CAP in patients with comorbidities or previous antibiotic use.

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.

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.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of antimicrobial treatment of community-acquired pneumonia taking into account resistance in Belgium.

OBJECTIVE: This article assesses the cost-effectiveness of outpatient antimicrobial treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) taking into account resistance in Belgium. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Our decision analytic model focused on mild to moderate CAP, but did not consider severe CAP. Treatment pathways reflected empirical treatment initiated in the absence of data on CAP aetiology. First-line treatment consisted of moxifloxacin, co-amoxiclav, cefuroxime or clarithromycin. If first-line treatment was unsuccessful, patients were either hospitalised or second-line treatment with a different antimicrobial was initiated. Clinical failure rates were obtained from the published literature or expert opinion. Costs were calculated using published sources from the third-party payer perspective. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness measures included first-line clinical failure avoided, second-line treatment avoided, hospitalisation avoided and death avoided. Healthcare costs were included, but costs of productivity loss were not considered. RESULTS: Costs of treating a CAP episode amounted to 144E with moxifloxacin/co-amoxiclav; 222E with co-amoxiclav/clarithromycin; 211E with cefuroxime/moxifloxacin; and 193E with clarithromycin/moxifloxacin. The rate of first-line failure was 5%, 16%, 19% and 18% for these four treatment strategies, respectively. The rate of second-line treatment amounted to 4%, 13%, 16% and 15%, respectively. The hospitalisation rate was 1%, 4%, 4% and 4%, respectively. The death rate was 0.01%, 0.04%, 0.03% and 0.03%, respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the dominance of moxifloxacin/co-amoxiclav in nearly all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment of CAP patients with moxifloxacin followed by co-amoxiclav or hospitalisation if required was more effective and less costly as compared with first-line treatment with co-amoxiclav, cefuroxime or clarithromycin.

[Effect on duration of antibiotic therapy and drug cost by introducing critical pathway for patients with CAP in Japan].

The aim of this study was to assess whether Marrie's critical pathway is an effective approach to reduce the duration of antibiotic intravenous therapy and drug cost in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in Japan. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in patients with CAP who were admitted to a community hospital or a university hospital. We collected clinical and economic data from medical records and medical fee receipts and estimated drug cost for switching the dosage form using Marrie's critical pathway. Outcomes of this study were change in duration of intravenous therapy and drug cost. Fifty patients with CAP were selected from two hospitals. Actual days of antibiotic intravenous therapy were 9.5+/-4.2 days; in contrast, estimated days were 1.2+/-3.0 days (p<0.001). Actual drug cost was 37148+/-28791 yen; in contrast, estimated drug cost was 8364+/-18356 yen (p<0.001). Average reduction of days of therapy and drug cost were 8.3 days and 28704 yen, respectively. This study suggests that the implementation of Marrie's critical pathway may be an effective approach to reduce medical resources used for CAP treatment in Japan.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia with linezolid or vancomycin in Spain.

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of linezolid (LIN) versus vancomycin (VAN) for the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) using a decision model analysis from the National Health System perspective. Patients and participants comprising four subgroups were analyzed: all, Gram-positive (GP), Staphylococcus aureus (SA), methicillin-resistant SA (MRSA). The treatments were LIN 600 mg i.v., every 12 hours, 10 days and VAN 1,000 mg i.v., every 12 hours 10 days. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness of LIN in terms of cost per added quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The secondary outcome was the marginal cost per year of life saved (LYS) generated by using LIN. Clinical cure and survival rates estimates were derived from a retrospective analysis of two trials comparing LIN with VAN. QALY was based on time-trade off study. Resource use and unit costs (Euros 2003) were obtained from Spanish VAP treatment and health cost databases. The additional QALY and LYS per LIN patients were 0.392; 0.688; 0.606; 1.805 and 0.471; 0.829; 0.729; 2.175 respectively, compared with those of VAN in the patients with VAP (all, GP, SA, and MRSA, respectively). The additional costs for LYS with LIN, as compared to VAN were 1,501.31; 827.63; 955.13 and 289.51 Euros, respectively. The additional cost per QALY with LIN was 1,803.87; 997.25; 1,149.00 and 348.85 Euros, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LIN was more cost-effective than VAN in the treatment of VAP in Spain, with an additional cost per QALY/LYS gained below the acceptable threshold in Spain of Euros 30,000 for new therapies.

An economic evaluation of sequential i.v./po moxifloxacin therapy compared to i.v./po co-amoxiclav with or without clarithromycin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate costs, clinical consequences, and cost-effectiveness from a German and French health-care system perspective of sequential i.v./po moxifloxacin monotherapy compared to co-amoxiclav with or without clarithromycin (AMC +/- CLA) in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) who required parenteral treatment. METHODS: Costs and consequences over 21 days were evaluated based on clinical cure rates 5 to 7 days after treatment and health resource use reported for the TARGET multinational, prospective, randomized, open-label trial. This trial compared sequential i.v./po monotherapy with moxifloxacin (400 mg qd) to i.v./po co-amoxiclav (1.2 g i.v./625 mg po tid) with or without clarithromycin (500 mg bid) for 7 to 14 days in hospitalized patients with CAP. Since no country-by-treatment interaction was found in spite of some country differences for length of hospital stays, resource data (antimicrobial treatment, hospitalization, and out-of-hospital care) from all centers were pooled and valued using German and French unit prices to estimate CAP-related cost to the German Sickness Funds and French public health-care sector, respectively. RESULTS: Compared to AMC +/- CLA, treatment with moxifloxacin resulted in 5.3% more patients achieving clinical cure 5 to 7 days after therapy (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 11.8%), increased speed of response (1 day sooner for median time to first return to apyrexia, p = 0.008), and a reduction in hospital stay by 0.81 days (95% CI, - 0.01 to 1.63) within the 21-day time frame. Treatment with moxifloxacin resulted in savings of 266 euro and 381 euro for Germany and France respectively, primarily due to the shorter length of hospital stay. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves show moxifloxacin has a > or = 95% chance of being cost saving from French and German health-care perspectives, and higher probability of being cost-effective at acceptability thresholds up to 2,000 euro per additional patient cured. CONCLUSION: i.v./po monotherapy with moxifloxacin shows clinical benefits including increased speed of response and is cost-effective compared to i.v./po AMC +/- CLA in the treatment of CAP.

Clinical and economic outcomes in respiratory tract infections: The impact of bacterial resistance.

Drug acquisition cost is an important component in the analysis of economic and clinical outcomes in the treatment of respiratory tract infections (RTIs). However, bacterial resistance has emerged as a crucial variable that must also be considered. Drug-resistant infections result in more expensive drug therapy, longer hospital stays, and increased mortality. The high prevalence of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), as well as the continuing growth in resistant pathogens, make RTIs an appropriate model for studying methods of cost-containment without sacrificing clinical outcome. The University of Kentucky Medical Center has developed a uniform CAP treatment pathway to minimize costs and maximize outcomes. First-line therapy in this model is doxycycline monotherapy, high-dose amoxicillin plus azithromycin, or levofloxacin monotherapy. One major future concern in selecting antibacterial agents for CAP is the spread of macrolide- and fluoroquinolone-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.

Clinical and economic evaluation of subsequent infection following intravenous ciprofloxacin or imipenem therapy in hospitalized patients with severe pneumonia.

A recent multicentre clinical study evaluated the safety and efficacy of i.v. ciprofloxacin therapy compared with imipenem-cilastatin in hospitalized patients with severe pneumonia. Monotherapy with i.v. ciprofloxacin was at least equivalent to imipenem in terms of bacteriological eradication and clinical response. In a single-centre, retrospective, post-therapy evaluation of persistent and subsequent infection, the incidence of gram-negative infections and associated costs were compared. The main elements of the economic analysis included costs of additional antimicrobial therapy and hospitalization. Thirty-two patients were randomized into the study, of whom 27 were efficacy-valid. The 13 patients randomized into the ciprofloxacin group were not significantly different from the 14 patients in the imipenem group in terms of clinical parameters. Clinical cure occurred in ten of 13 patients (77%) in the ciprofloxacin group and in seven of 14 (50%) in the imipenem group. Bacteriological eradication was achieved in 11 of 13 (85%) ciprofloxacin-treated and eight of 14 (57%) imipenem-treated patients. Five of 13 (38%) patients in the ciprofloxacin group and nine of 14 (64%) in the imipenem group experienced persistent or subsequent infection requiring post-treatment antimicrobials. In these five ciprofloxacin patients, three had cultures with gram-positive organisms only and two had cultures with both gram-positive and gram-negative organisms. In the nine imipenem-treated patients requiring post-study antimicrobials, all had gram-negative bacteria and three also had gram-positive organisms. The incidence of subsequent gram-negative infection in the two groups (15% vs 64%) was significantly different (P < 0.05). Pseudomonas aeruginosa was isolated from seven patients in the imipenem group but only one in the ciprofloxacin group (P < 0.05). Subsequent costs for post-therapy antimicrobials and hospital stay while receiving study and post-study drug therapy were evaluated; the cost per patient cure was US$29,000 for ciprofloxacin and US$76,000 for imipenem. Initial treatment of severe pneumonia with ciprofloxacin resulted in significantly less subsequent gram-negative infection and was associated with substantially lower curative costs.

Switch therapy in community-acquired pneumonia.

In patients admitted to the hospital with community-acquired pneumonia, intravenous antimicrobials can be safely switched to oral administration when the patient shows evidence of early clinical improvement. In our institution, patients are switched to oral antibiotics when: (A) cough and respiratory distress are improving, (B) patient is afebrile for at least 8 h, (C) the white blood cell count is returning toward normal, and (D) there is no evidence of abnormal gastrointestinal absorption. Patients with respiratory infections of unknown etiology are switched to an oral antibiotic with the same spectrum of activity as the intravenous empiric antibiotic. Combining our prospective clinical studies, we have patient outcome data for more than 150 patients admitted to the hospital with community-acquired pneumonia, who were treated with switch therapy. The clinical cure rate was 99.3%. The total hospital savings for 1994 based on the 80 patients with community-acquired pneumonia who were treated with switch therapy was $114,080. Discontinuation of intravenous lines will decrease the patient's risk for local cellulitis, abscess formation, septic thrombophlebitis, line sepsis, and endocarditis. The early hospital discharge associated with switch therapy will decrease the patient's risk for other nosocomial infections such as urinary or respiratory tract infections. Switch therapy is associated with a clinical cure rate that is equivalent to conventional therapy. In the area of cost-effective use of antibiotics, switch therapy should be considered as one of the primary options for health care cost containment.