Once-Daily Ceftriaxone Plus Metronidazole Versus Ertapenem and/or Cefoxitin for Pediatric Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is a common surgical emergency in pediatric patients, and broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy is warranted in their care. A simplified once-daily regimen of ceftriaxone and metronidazole (CTX plus MTZ) is cost effective in perforated patients. The goal of this evaluation is to compare a historic regimen of cefoxitin (CFX) in nonperforated cases and ertapenem (ERT) in perforated and abscessed cases with CTX plus MTZ for all cases in terms of efficacy and cost. METHODS: A retrospective review compared outcomes of nonperforated, perforated, and abscessed cases who received the historic regimen or CTX plus MTZ. Length of stay, time to afebrile, time to full feeds, postoperative abscess, and wound infection rates, inpatient readmissions, and antibiotic costs were evaluated. RESULTS: There were a total of 841 cases reviewed (494 nonperforated, 247 perforated, and 100 abscessed). Overall, the CTX plus MTZ group had a shorter time to afebrile (P < .001). Treatment groups did not differ in length of stay. Postoperative abscess rates were similar between groups (4.1% vs 3.3%, not significant). Other postoperative complications were similar between groups. Total antibiotic cost savings were over $110 000 during the study period (from November 2010 to June 2013). CONCLUSIONS: Both CFX and/or ERT and CTX plus MTZ result in low abscess and complication rates, suggesting both are effective strategies. Treatment with CTX plus MTZ results in a shorter time to afebrile, while also providing significant antibiotic cost savings. Ceftriaxone plus MTZ is a streamlined, cost-effective regimen in the treatment of nonperforated, perforated, and abscessed appendicitis.

A prospective, randomised comparison of single- vs. multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in penetrating trauma.

UNLABELLED: This study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy of a single dose of ceftriaxone with cefoxitin given 3 times a day for 3 days. METHODS: Patients had to have a penetrating injury to only one part of the body, reach the hospital within 2 h and be operated on within 16 h after the trauma. Patients were excluded if it appeared likely that they would require mechanical ventilation for more than 24 h. The same applies to open or grade II/III craniocerebral trauma. The end point was the occurrence of infections within 10 days. The costs of antibiotic treatment were also calculated. RESULTS: 96% of the ceftriaxone patients (n = 97) and 95% of the cefoxitin group (n = 98) remained infection-free. In neither treatment group was deep infection, abscess, phlegmon or sepsis seen. No additional surgery or intensive care due to infection was required. At $41.83 vs. $172.16, the average total cost of delivering antibiotic treatment was significantly lower in the ceftriaxone group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis in penetrating trauma with a single dose of ceftriaxone is safe and has considerable practical and economic advantages.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of ampicillin-sulbactam versus cefoxitin in the treatment of intraabdominal infections.

We conducted a retrospective pharmacoeconomic analysis of a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing the beta-lactamase inhibitor combination ampicillin-sulbactam (96 patients) and the cephalosporin cefoxitin (101) in the treatment of intraabdominal infections. An institutional perspective was adopted for the analysis. The primary outcomes of interest were cure and failure rates, development of new infection, and antibiotic-related adverse events. Epidemiologic data pertaining to outcomes was retrieved primarily from the trial, although results of other published studies were taken into consideration through extensive sensitivity analyses. Data pertaining to potential resource use and economic impact were retrieved mainly from the University Health Consortium and hospital-specific sources. When considering only costs associated with drug acquisition through cost-minimization analysis, a potential savings of $37.24/patient may be realized with ampicillin-sulbactam relative to cefoxitin based on an average 7-day regimen. Outcome data collected for the entire hospitalization during the trial revealed an approximately 9% greater frequency of failure with cefoxitin relative to ampicillin-sulbactam. When considering all outcomes of interest in the initial base-case analysis, a potential cost savings of approximately $890/patient may be realized with ampicillin-sulbactam relative to cefoxitin. In assessing the impact of the significant variability in probability and cost estimates, Monte Carlo analysis revealed a savings of $425/patient for ampicillin-sulbactam over cefoxitin (95% CI -$618 to $1516 [corrected]). Given the model assumptions, our analysis suggests a 78% certainty level that savings will be experienced when ampicillin-sulbactam is chosen over cefoxitin.

Cefazolin compared with cefoxitin for cesarean section prophylaxis: the use of a two-stage study design.

The authors used a two-stage design to compare the risk of endometritis in women undergoing non-elective cesarean section who received cefazolin prophylaxis (n = 481) with those who received cefoxitin prophylaxis (n = 1799). The primary data source for this study was an automated record linkage system which allowed the ascertainment of exposure(antibiotic prophylaxis) and preliminary ascertainment of outcome (post-partum endometritis) on a consecutive sample of women undergoing cesarean section between 1 April 1987 and 30 September 1989. Potentially important covariates not available in the automated data source were sampled by review of complete medical records of a random sample of each exposure-disease category of the cohort. Of the 2280 women studied, 99 (4.3%) developed postpartum endometritis. After control for age, race, anemia, presence of ruptured membranes, parity, labor, number of vaginal examinations and payor status the adjusted odds ratio for cefazolin compared to cefoxitin was 0.95 (95% C.I. 0.5-1.9). The cost of prophylaxis was significantly higher for women who received cefoxitin prophylaxis ($56/patient vs $9.55/patient). These results suggest that cefazolin prophylaxis should be favored over cefoxitin due to lower cost and similar efficacy. This study also demonstrates the efficiency of a two-stage design in the setting where exposure and outcome are available for an entire cohort but information about important covariates is more difficult to obtain.

Comparison of cefoxitin and ceftizoxime in a hospital therapeutic interchange program.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether (a) ceftizoxime can replace cefoxitin in the prevention and treatment of various infections in a major teaching hospital, (b) a previously applied two-stage intervention program is an effective method of instituting a therapeutic interchange of ceftizoxime for cefoxitin and (c) the replacement of cefoxitin with ceftizoxime results in a more cost-effective therapy. DESIGN: Two-phase, open, sequential study. SETTING: Tertiary care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred patients who received cefoxitin during the 6 months immediately before the start of the interchange program (phase 1) and 100 who received ceftizoxime during the 6 months immediately after the start of the program (phase 2) were randomly selected. RESULTS: The demographic characteristics of the two patient groups were similar except for sex (p < 0.05). The cefoxitin doses were usually given every 6 hours (in 33% of the cases) or every 8 hours (in 61%), whereas the ceftizoxime doses were usually given every 12 hours (in 98%). Prescriber distribution was stable throughout the study period, the Department of General Surgery being responsible for about 70% of the orders. Prophylactic indications accounted for over 60% of the treatment courses. The proportion of prophylactic treatment courses that resulted in a successful clinical outcome did not differ between the two groups (cefoxitin 92% and ceftizoxime 91%). Of the empiric or directed treatment courses clinical success or improvement was observed in 89% of the cefoxitin and 91% of the ceftizoxime recipients. Microbiologic eradication was seen in 65% of the cefoxitin and 90% of the ceftizoxime directed treatment courses. Pathogens isolated during therapy were similar in the two treatment groups. Diarrhea was the most common adverse effect, occurring in 8% of the cefoxitin and 10% of the ceftizoxime recipients; no Clostridium difficile or C.-difficile-producing toxin was identified in these patients. The ceftizoxime therapy was 36% less expensive than the cefoxitin therapy on average, and the annual savings was estimated to be $83,123. An estimated 5615 drug doses were avoided annually, for an additional savings of $24,875 in drug administration. Therefore, the total estimated annual cost savings resulting from this two-stage interchange program was $107,998. Given the cost of $4856 to implement and maintain the program, the estimated net savings for the first year was $103,142. CONCLUSION: Ceftizoxime can replace cefoxitin in the prevention and treatment of various infections. The form of evaluation described herein is valuable when any formulary modification is being considered in a hospital.

Therapeutic interchange of cefazolin with metronidazole for cefoxitin.

The effects on patient outcome and drug therapy costs of a therapeutic interchange program using a cefazolin and metronidazole combination in place of cefoxitin were studied. A therapeutic interchange program was initiated in which the pharmacy department automatically replaced orders for cefoxitin with orders for a cefazolin and metronidazole combination. Data were compared for 100 consecutive patients who received cefoxitin before initiation of the program and the first 100 patients who received cefazolin and metronidazole as part of the program. The impact of the program on therapeutic efficacy, adverse effects associated with therapy, and drug therapy costs was assessed. The two patient groups were similar in age, gender, and white blood cell count. The failure rates for treatment or prophylaxis of infection did not significantly differ between the groups. Duration of therapy and incidence of adverse effects did not significantly differ between the groups. The average cost saving was +72 per patient for treatment with cefazolin and metronidazole instead of cefoxitin. A program for therapeutic interchange of cefazolin and metronidazole in place of cefoxitin demonstrated equivalent efficacy and adverse effects, as well as considerable cost savings.

A cost effective approach to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis.

Cefoxitin has been the prophylactic antibiotic of choice for appendectomy and colorectal surgery at this institution. Recent information suggests that cefazolin and metronidazole given as a single intravenous preparation could be a cost-effective alternative to cefoxitin or cefotetan for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis of uncomplicated appendectomies. This study was conducted to determine the efficacy, toxicity, and cost of the current antibiotic regimens used for prophylaxis of uncomplicated appendectomies, to evaluate the efficacy, toxicity and cost of the cefazolin plus metronidazole combination in uncomplicated appendectomies, and to facilitate a cooperative working relationship between the Departments of Pharmacy and General Surgery. Although the numbers involved were small, this study suggests that the cefazolin/metronidazole combination is cost-effective. It is suggested that research is warranted in evaluating combinations such as this as cost-effective alternatives to current therapy.

The importance of wound infection in antibiotic failures in the therapy of postpartum endometritis.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was done to compare the efficacy of cefoxitin (2 grams given intravenously every six hours) with ceftizoxime (2 grams given intravenously every 12 hours) in the treatment of postpartum endometritis. Thirty-eight patients received cefoxitin and 43 received ceftizoxime. Demographic variables (age, gravidity, parity and estimated gestational age) and risk factors (cesarean section, operating time, duration of ruptured membranes and labor, number of vaginal examinations and internal monitoring) were not statistically different in the two antibiotic groups. In the cefoxitin group, eight of 38 patients failed initial antibiotic therapy and six of 43 patients in the ceftizoxime group failed (p = 0.399). In the univariate analysis, abdominal wound infection (p = 0.003) and higher gestational age (p = 0.008) were associated with failure of the antibiotic. With multiple logistic regression, only abdominal wound infection was associated with failure of the antibiotic (p = 0.0002). We conclude that cefoxitin and ceftizoxime are equally effective in the therapy of postpartum endometritis and that abdominal wound infection is primarily responsible for persistent fever and, therefore, failure of the antibiotic in patients with postpartum endometritis.

[A utilization review program of cefoxitin]. / Programme de revue d'utilisation de la céfoxitine.

A drug utilization review program of cefoxitin was conducted in a 714-bed teaching hospital. Health records of all 43 in-patients who received cefoxitin during the month of November 1987 were reviewed retrospectively. The use of cefoxitin (47 courses) was evaluated on the basis of "appropriate use" criteria developed from the literature and the physician's clinical experience. Of the 47 courses evaluated, cefoxitin was prescribed for prophylaxis in 47%, and its use was considered inappropriate in 86% of these. Overall, 66% of total cefoxitin usage was deemed inappropriate in this hospital. The cost associated with inappropriate use was estimated at $2672 for the period of the study. Corrective measures were then implemented to rectify the identified problems. A second study was conducted 2 years later to assess the impact of the corrective measures. This utilization review program of cefoxitin showed that optimal use of a drug requires not only close collaboration between pharmacists and physicians but a continuous and not a sporadic process of surveillance of the prescription for the drug being studied.