Linezolid versus vancomycin cost in the treatment of staphylococcal pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: Staphylococcusaureus is involved in around 20% of nosocomial pneumonia cases. Vancomycin used to be the reference antibiotic in this indication, but new molecules have been commercialized, such as linezolid. Previous studies comparing vancomycin and linezolid were based on models. Comparing their real costs from a hospital perspective was needed. METHODS: We performed a bicentric retrospective analysis with a cost-minimization analysis. The hospital antibiotic acquisition costs were used, as well as the laboratory test and administration costs from the health insurance cost scale. The cost of each hospital stay was evaluated using the national cost scale per diagnosis related group (DRG), and was then weighted by the stay duration. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were included. All bacteria identified in pulmonary samples were S. aureus. The cost of nursing care per stay with linezolid was €234.10 (SD=91.50) vs. €381.70 (SD=184.70) with vancomycin (P=0.0029). The cost of laboratory tests for linezolid was €172.30 (SD=128.90) per stay vs. €330.70 (SD=198.40) for vancomycin (P=0.0005). The acquisition cost of linezolid per stay was not different from vancomycin based on the price of the generic drug (€54.92 [SD=20.54] vs. €40.30 [SD=22.70]). After weighting by the duration of stay observed, the mean cost per hospital stay was €47,411.50 for linezolid and €57,694.0 for vancomycin (NSD). CONCLUSION: These results, in favor of linezolid, support other former pharmacoeconomic study based on models. The mean cost per hospitalization stay was not statistically different between the two study groups, but a trend in favor of linezolid is emerging.

Cerebral toxoplasmosis and anti-TNFα: a case report.

We report a case that documents the second known patient treated by anti-TNFα who has been diagnosed a cerebral toxoplasmosis.

Family physicians and HIV infection.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the current and desired involvement of family physicians (FPs) in the treatment of HIV patients (screening practices, potential training and patient follow-up) to reduce the duration and frequency of their hospital treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional survey between 2011 and 2012 with the support of COREVIH (Regional Coordinating Committee on HIV). We sent a self-assessment questionnaire to all FPs of the Pays de la Loire region to enquire about their HIV screening practices and expectations for the management of HIV patients. RESULTS: A total of 871 FPs completed the questionnaire (response rate: 30.4%). A total of 54.2% said to provide care to HIV patients; the mean number of HIV patients per FP was estimated at 1.4. With regard to HIV screening, 12.2% systematically suggest an HIV serology to their patients and 72.7% always suggest it to pregnant women. About 45.4% of responding FPs said to be willing to manage HIV patients (clinical and biological monitoring, compliance checks and prescription renewal). FPs mainly reported the lack of training and the low number of HIV patients as a barrier to their further involvement in the management of HIV patients. CONCLUSION: The responding FPs provide care to very few HIV patients. They are, however, willing to be more involved in the routine care of these patients. Medical training provided by COREVIH would help improve HIV screening. The management of HIV patients could thus be handed over to willing FPs.