Cefuroxime (Aprokam®) in the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Endophthalmitis After Cataract Surgery Versus Absence of Antibiotic Prophylaxis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Poland.

OBJECTIVE: The analysis aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of cefuroxime (Aprokam®) in the prophylaxis of postoperative endophthalmitis (POE) after cataract surgery compared with the absence of antibiotic prophylaxis from the National Health Fund perspective in Poland. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis using the decision tree and Markov model, respectively, for patients after cataract surgery. The efficacy of Aprokam was 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.55) and is based on the results of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery study. According to the epidemiological data from Poland, the risk of POE is 0.377%. The costs associated with the Aprokam administration and POE treatment costs were included. We determined the utilities of the health states in the model depending on visual loss due to POE. To determine the uncertainty of estimates parameters, a one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: Using Aprokam allows avoiding 0.003 POEs per patient. The benefit from the intervention is 0.0007 quality-adjusted life years per patient in the lifetime horizon. The total costs of prophylaxis are higher at about €1.70. The cost of avoiding one POE (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) is about €569.85. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness utility ratio is equal to €2427.72/quality-adjusted life-years, and it is significantly lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold in Poland in 2019 (about 7.5% of the threshold). In all scenarios of performed one-way sensitivity analyses, Aprokam is cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: In Poland, the use of Aprokam is cost-effective, with the estimated incremental cost-utility ratio significantly lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold.

Prevention of peritonitis in newly-placed peritoneal dialysis catheters: efficacy of oral prophylaxis with cefuroxime axetil - a preliminary study.

BACKGROUND: Peritonitis is one of the causes of early peritoneal dialysis (PD) failure in newly-placed catheters. Antibiotic prophylaxis has been recommended to decrease the risk of infection after PD catheter placement. In this study, we compared the efficacy of parenteral versus oral prophylactic cefuroxime axetil for preventing peritonitis after placed PD catheters. METHODS: In total, 67 patients (F/M: 32/35; mean age: 46.6±13.2 years) undergoing 70 percutaneous PD catheter placement procedures were included (in three patients, placement was repeated). In 37 patients (parenteral group), we administered a single intravenous (IV) 750-mg dose of cefuroxime axetil, approximately 30 min before placement. In the oral group, 33 patients received a 500-mg dose of oral cefuroxime axetil 1 hour before the procedure and the patients continued that twice daily for 3 days. Patients were evaluated for peritonitis over the following 14 days. The costs of both oral and parenteral forms of cefuroxime axetil were calculated. RESULTS: The two groups were similar regarding age and gender. Three patients (9%) in the oral group and three (8.1%) in the parenteral group developed peritonitis (P=0.578). All were responded to therapy for peritonitis. The cost of parenteral prophylaxis was $US 7.58, while that of the oral form was $US 3.92. CONCLUSION: For patients undergoing percutaneous PD catheter insertion, a 3-day regimen of oral cefuroxime axetil for preventing early peritonitis was safe, equally effective, and had lower cost comparing with single intravenous dose of the same agent.

Budget impact assessment of Aprokam® compared with unlicensed cefuroxime for prophylaxis of post-cataract surgery endophthalmitis.

BACKGROUND: Intracameral cefuroxime is recommended as prophylaxis against postoperative endophthalmitis (POE) following cataract surgery. Aprokam is the only licensed product for prophylaxis of POE, although unlicensed intracameral cefuroxime may be administered using pre-filled syringes (PFS), either prepared in hospital by reconstituting cefuroxime via serial dilution (prepared PFS), or commercially purchased (purchased PFS). This study aimed to estimate the potential budget impact of using Aprokam over unlicensed cefuroxime for intracameral administration. METHODS: A budget impact model (BIM) was developed from UK NHS hospital perspective to estimate the economic impact of adopting Aprokam compared with purchased PFS or prepared PFS for the prophylaxis of POE following cataract surgery over a 5-year time horizon. The BIM incorporated direct costs only, associated with the acquisition, delivery, storage, preparation, and administration of cefuroxime. Resource utilisation costs were also incorporated; resource utilisation was sourced from a panel survey of hospital pharmacists, surgeons, and theatre nurses who are involved in the delivery, storage, preparation, quality assurance, or administration of cefuroxime formulations. Unit costs were sourced from NHS sources; drug acquisition costs were sourced from BNF. The model base case used a hypothetical cohort comprising of 1000 surgeries in the first year and followed a 5.2 % annual increase each year. RESULTS: The model predicts Aprokam is cost saving compared with purchased PFS, with a modest increase compared prepared PFS over 5 years. There are total savings of £ 3490 with Aprokam compared with purchased PFS, driven by savings in staff costs that offset greater drug acquisition costs. Compared with prepared PFS, there are greater drug acquisition costs which drive an increased total cost over 5 years of £ 13,177 with Aprokam, although there are substantial savings in staff costs as well as consumables and equipment costs. CONCLUSIONS: The lower direct costs of using Aprokam compared with purchased PFS presents a strong argument for the adoption of Aprokam where purchased PFS is administered. The additional benefits of Aprokam include increased liability coverage and possible reduction in dilution errors and contaminations; as such, in hospitals where unlicensed prepared PFS is used, modest additional resources should be allocated to adoption of Aprokam.

Cost effectiveness of three drugs for the treatment of S. aureus infections in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Resistance of microorganisms to existing antimicrobial agents threatens the effective utilization of available resources in sub-Saharan Africa. Cost-effective utilization of antibacterial agents is essential in effective health care delivery in Nigeria. OBJECTIVES: To determine the most cost effective antibacterial agent in the treatment of S. aureus infections in Lagos metropolis. SETTING: The study was carried out in a teaching hospital, a specialist hospital, a referral center and two private hospitals. METHODS: Cost effectiveness analysis of ciprofloxacin, cefuroxime and gentamicin identified to be most effective agent against 463 clinical isolates of S. aureus obtained from the five hospitals was carried out on the basis of societal, health care and third party perspectives using 'decision table" as an analytical model. Criteria considered in the model included degree of efficacy of the agents, adherence tendencies and tolerability. Both direct (cost of drugs, diagnosis/monitoring, personnel and transportation) and indirect (loss of productivity) costs were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: These include economic outcome as total therapy cost, clinical outcomes as extent of antibacterial effectiveness obtained from degree of antibacterial efficacy, a proxy measurement of cure rates, and adherence tendency. Humanistic outcome was also measured as tolerability prorated from literature reported degree of adverse drug reactions events, risk of infection and pains from drug administration. RESULTS: Ciprofloxacin tablet is a dominant option and much more cost-effective than either cefuroxime or gentamicin in the treatment of S. aureus in Lagos. Regardless of the perspective of analysis, ciprofloxacin has the least cost effectiveness ratio of NGN4214.66 ($28.09), NGN2392.63 ($16.00) and NGN2048.66 ($13.65) from societal, health care and third party payer perspectives, respectively. Sensitivity analysis by increasing the effectiveness index of gentamicin injection-the least cost effective option to the value for the most cost effective option did not change the results. CONCLUSION: Ciprofloxacin should be used as first-line-treatment of S aureus in Lagos as it will lead to significant cost savings in the treatment of S. aureus infections.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intracameral cefuroxime use for prophylaxis of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intracameral cefuroxime for postoperative endophthalmitis prophylaxis, and to determine the efficacy threshold necessary for alternative antibiotics to attain cost-effective equivalence with intracameral cefuroxime. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. PARTICIPANTS: We study a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients undergoing cataract surgery as a part of the cost analysis. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was constructed to analyze different antibiotic prophylactic regimens for postoperative endophthalmitis with intracameral cefuroxime as our base case. Efficacy was defined as the absolute reduction in rate of infection from background rate of infection, which was sourced from the literature. Antibiotic cost data were derived from the Red Book 2007 edition, and salary data were taken from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Multivariate sensitivity analysis assessed the performance of antibiotic options under different scenarios. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per case of endophthalmitis prevented; theoretical maximal cost-effectiveness; efficacy threshold necessary to achieve cost-effective equivalence with intracameral cefuroxime; ratio indicating how many times more effective or less expensive alternative antibiotics would have to be to achieve cost-effective equivalence with intracameral cefuroxime. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness ratio for intracameral cefuroxime is $1403 per case of postoperative endophthalmitis prevented. By comparison, the least expensive topical fluoroquinolone in our study, ciprofloxacin, would have to be >8 times more effective than intracameral cefuroxime to achieve cost-effective equivalence. The most expensive topical fluoroquinolones studied, gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin, would have to be > or =19 times more effective than intracameral cefuroxime to achieve cost-effective equivalence. A sensitivity analysis reveals that even in the worst case scenario for intracameral cefuroxime efficacy and with a 50% reduction in the cost of 4th-generation fluoroquinolones, gatifloxacin and moxifloxacin would have to be > or =9 times more effective than intracameral cefuroxime to achieve cost-effective equivalence. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of intracameral cefuroxime is relatively cost-effective in preventing endophthalmitis after cataract surgery. Owing to their high costs, many commonly used topical antibiotics are not cost-effective compared with intracameral cefuroxime, even under optimistic assumptions about their efficacy.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of oral gemifloxacin versus intravenous ceftriaxone followed by oral cefuroxime with/without a macrolide for the treatment of hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

We studied the cost-effectiveness of oral gemifloxacin with intravenous ceftriaxone followed by oral cefuroxime with or without a macrolide to treat patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Data were prospectively collected as part of a randomized multicenter study. The costs evaluated included antimicrobial acquisition (1st level); plus preparation, dispensing, and administration costs, and treatment of antimicrobial-related adverse events and clinical failures (2nd level); plus per diem costs for hospital stay related to study drug administration (3rd level). At follow-up, clinical success was similar between gemifloxacin (76.9%)- and ceftriaxone (79.1%)-treated patients. The median 1st-level costs for gemifloxacin and ceftriaxone were $136 and $470 (P<0.001), respectively. For the 2nd level, these costs were $158 and $542 (P<0.001), and for the 3rd level, these were $5052 and $5789 (P=0.025), respectively. The median cost per expected success was $6568 for gemifloxacin and $7321 for ceftriaxone (P=0.29). Oral gemifloxacin is clinically effective and has an economic advantage over ceftriaxone, followed by oral cefuroxime with or without a macrolide.

[Pharmacoeconomic analysis of patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis treated with telithromycin or cefuroxime-axetil]. / Análisis farmacoeconómico del tratamiento de pacientes con exacerbación aguda de la bronquitis crónica con telitromicina o cefuroxima-axetilo.

INTRODUCTION: A pharmacoeconomic analysis was done to compare the efficiency of two treatments in the acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis: telithromycin and cefuroxime-axetil. METHODS: Restrospective analysis, modeled through a decision tree. The effectiveness of the treatments was estimated through a randomized and double-blind clinical trial in which 800 mg/day (5 days) of telithromycin were compared with 1,000 mg/day (10 days) of cefuroxime-axetil in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (140 and 142 patients, respectively). Resources use was estimated from clinical trial and from Spanish data, and the unit costs through a health costs dabatase. The model was validated by a panel of Spanish clinical experts. RESULTS: Since the clinical trial was designed to demonstrate equivalence, there were no significant differences of effectiveness among both treatments (with a rate of clinical cure of 86.4% and 83.1%, respectively) which means that an analysis of costs minimization was done. In the average case, the average cost of the disease by patient was 174.83 Euros with telithromycin and 194.68 Euros with cefuroxime-axetil (a difference of 19.85 Euros). The results were maintained in the analysis of sensitivity, with favorable differences for telithromycin that ranged between 18.04 Euros and 22.25 Euros. CONCLUSIONS: With telithromycin up to 22 Euros by patient with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis could be saved, in comparison with cefuroxime-axetil.

[Single-dose ceftriaxone versus multiple-dose cefuroxime for prophylaxis of surgical site infection].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects and pharmacoeconomics of single-dose of ceftriaxone versus 3-day cefuroxime prophylaxis in patients undergoing gastric or colorectal resection. METHODS: Three hundred and five consecutive patients with gastric or colorectal cancer from 5 medical centers were randomly divided into ceftriaxone group (n = 153, receiving intravenously 1 g ceftriaxone 0.5 - 1 h prior to operation only) and cefuroxime group (n = 152, receiving 0.75 g cefuroxime preoperatively and the same dose q8h for 3 d). The patients' intra- and postoperative status, adverse responses and infectious complications were observed and documented, and pharmacoeconomic parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: The disease distribution, operative procedures and patients' conditions in the 2 groups were comparable. No adverse responses to the test antibiotics were observed. Postoperative infectious complications occurred in 7 cases in the ceftriaxone group (4.58%) and 14 cases in the cefuroxime group (9.21%), respectively (P = 0.992), among which, 12 cases were surgical site infections (incisional, intra-abdominal): 2 cases in the ceftriaxone group (1.31%), and 10 cases in the cefuroxime group (6.58%), (chi(2) = 5.607, P = 0.018). The direct cost related to prevention and treatment of surgical site infections was 283.5 RMB in the ceftriaxone group and 811.1 RMB in the cefuroxime group (Z = 14.51, P = 0.000). CONCLUSION: Both ceftriaxone and cefuroxime are safe and effective for prevention of surgical site infections. Single-dose ceftriaxone prophylaxis is sufficient for gastric and colorectal operations, with a better cost-effectiveness ratio.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in elective thoracic surgery: cefuroxime versus cefepime.

BACKGROUND: Infection is one of the major morbidity factors after thoracic surgery. Although different prophylactic regimens have been used to prevent this complication, the ideal prophylactic agent, dose and duration of administration remain unknown. METHODS: All patients included underwent elective lung resection. 102 selected patients consecutively scheduled for major thoracic surgery were enrolled in this study and randomized into either the cefuroxime group (n = 50) or the cefepime group (n = 52). RESULTS: Twelve pathologic bacterium strains were isolated in the cefepime group, whereas only 5 pathogenic strains were isolated in the cefuroxime group; the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.04). Two empyemas (3.8 %) in the cefepime group were noted, while the cefuroxime group showed no cases of empyema (p = 0.16). Overall infection rate (pneumonia + bronchopneumonia + empyema) were 14.0 % and 26.7 % in the cefuroxime and the cefepime groups, respectively (p = 0.12). Using chest radiography, pulmonary infiltration was found to be more frequent in the cefuroxime group (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Cefuroxime as a prophylactic agent in major thoracic surgical operations was marginally more effective than cefepime, and presented an additional cost advantage.

Comparative efficacy of amoxicillin, cefuroxime and clarithromycin in the treatment of community -acquired pneumonia in children.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical response to amoxicillin, cefuroxime and clarithromycin in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in children and to see the cost effectiveness of each treatment. DESIGN: Randomized clinical control trial. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Department of Pediatrics, Khyber teaching hospital, Peshawar, from October 2001 to February 2002. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients between 3 to 72 months of age, admitted in the hospital with community acquired pneumonia, were randomly divided into three groups,1,2,3. They were started on amoxicillin, cefuroxime and clarithromycin respectively. The patients were assessed daily. If there was no clinical improvement at 48 hours the antibiotic was changed. ANOVA statistical test was applied to see the clinical response to the treatment in the three groups. Cost effectiveness of the treatment was compared. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the clinical response at 48 hours of initiating treatment and at discharge (p > 0.01 each). The mean hospital stay in group 1 and 2 was 3.3 days and group 3 was 3.2 days respectively (p > 0.01). Ninety-seven percent patients in group 1 and 3, and 95% patients in group 2 showed clinical improvement. The cost of treatment of community acquired pneumonia for 8 days was Rs 496/-, 730/-, 1018/- for amoxicillin, clarithromycin and cefuroxime respectively. CONCLUSION: Amoxicillin was found the most cost effective followed by clarithromycin and cefuroxime respectively in the treatment of non-severe and severe community-acquired pneumonia.

Cost-effectiveness of IV-to-oral switch therapy: azithromycin vs cefuroxime with or without erythromycin for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of IV-to-oral regimens of azithromycin vs cefuroxime with or without erythromycin in the treatment of patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). PATIENTS: Of the 268 evaluable patients enrolled into a randomized, multicenter clinical trial of adults, 266 patients had sufficient data to be included in this cost-effectiveness analysis. One hundred thirty-six patients received azithromycin, and 130 patients received cefuroxime with or without erythromycin. METHODS: A pharmacoeconomic analysis from the hospital provider perspective was conducted. Health-care resource utilization was extracted from the clinical database and converted to national reference costs. Decision analysis was used to structure and characterize outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed, and statistics were applied to the cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: The clinical success and adverse event rates and antibiotic-related length of stay were 78%, 11.8%, and 5.8 days for the azithromycin group and 75%, 20.7%, and 6.4 days for the group receiving cefuroxime with or without erythromycin, respectively. Geometric mean treatment costs were 4,104 US dollars (95% confidence interval [CI], 3,874 to 4,334 US dollars) for the azithromycin group, and 4,578 US dollars (95% CI, 4,319 to 4,837 US dollars) for the group receiving cefuroxime with or without erythromycin (p = 0.06). The cost-effectiveness ratios were 5,265 US dollars per expected cure for the azithromycin group, and 6,145 US dollars per expected cure for group receiving cefuroxime with or without erythromycin (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher per-dose purchase price, overall costs with azithromycin tended to be lower due to decreased duration of therapy, lower preparation and administration costs, and reduced hospital length of stay. As empiric therapy, azithromycin monotherapy was cost-effective compared to cefuroxime with or without erythromycin for patients hospitalized with CAP who have no underlying cardiopulmonary disease, and no risk factors for either drug-resistant pneumococci or enteric Gram-negative pathogens.

Pharmacokinetics of antibiotic prophylaxis in major orthopedic surgery and blood-saving techniques.

The pharmacokinetics of cefuroxime, cefotiam, cefamandole, and ampicillin/sulbactam were randomly measured in 40 patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery associated with high blood and volume turnover and intraoperative blood salvage. Serum and bone concentrations and the pharmacokinetics occurring in the context of these procedures were measured. No changes in elimination half-life relative to a normal population occurred with cefuroxime, cefotiam, and ampicillin. Serum and tissue concentrations were slightly lower with cefamandole and sulbactam, but reapplication of the initial dose was required with all antibiotics 4 hours after the first application.

Serum concentrations of cefuroxime after continuous infusion in coronary bypass graft patients.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the serum concentrations of continuous infusion of cefuroxime for postsurgical prophylaxis of sternal wound infection in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), and to assess the incidence of sternal wound infection in this population. METHODS: This was a prospective, noncomparative trial involving 54 patients undergoing elective CABG surgery. All patients enrolled in the study received cefuroxime 1.5 g as a single intravenous dose 30 minutes preoperatively, followed by a continuous infusion of 3 g every 24 hours until removal of all central venous catheters. RESULTS: Of the 53 evaluable patients, the mean steady-state cefuroxime serum concentration was 21.6 +/- 14.2 microg/mL (range 6.56-59.5). No patient developed a sternal wound infection. The mean treatment duration was 2.58 +/- 2.13 days (range 1-13). The median hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay were six days and 46 hours, respectively. The average antibiotic cost per day was $32.76. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results of continuous infusion of cefuroxime 3 g/d for prophylaxis of sternal wound infections in CABG patients indicate that serum concentrations are highly variable, but reliably above the minimum inhibitory concentration for the common anticipated pathogens in this setting. Further comparative trials in a larger number of patients are necessary before this mode of administration can be routinely advocated for prophylaxis.

The efficacy and cost of prophylactic and perioprocedural antibiotics in patients with external ventricular drains.

OBJECTIVE: Prophylactic antibiotics are routinely administered to patients with external ventricular drains (EVDs); however, no conclusive evidence supports this practice. This study compared the efficacy and cost of prophylactic and periprocedural antibiotics in patients with EVDs. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 308 patients who had an EVD in place for 3 or more days between January 1996 and June 1997. Patients with EVDs placed for shunt infections or meningitis were excluded. A standard protocol was used to insert and monitor EVDs. Catheters were left in place as long as clinically indicated and changed only if they malfunctioned. Cerebrospinal fluid cultures were obtained twice weekly. Prophylactic antibiotics were used at the discretion of the attending neurosurgeon. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A comprised 209 patients who received prophylactic antibiotics for the duration of the EVD (intravenously administered cefuroxime, 1.5 g every 8 h); Group B comprised 99 patients who received only periprocedural antibiotics (intravenously administered cefuroxime, 1.5 g every 8 h, three or less doses). RESULTS: Although there were significantly more males in Group A than in Group B, the two groups were otherwise well matched, with no significant differences in age, indications, or duration of EVD placement. The overall rate of ventriculitis was 3.9%. The infection rates for Group A (3.8%) and Group B (4.0%) were almost identical. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic antibiotics did not significantly reduce the rate of ventriculitis in patients with EVDs, and they may select for resistant organisms. Discontinuing the use of prophylactic antibiotics for EVDs at the authors' institution would save approximately $80,000 per year in direct drug costs.

[Prospective, randomized, comparative study of the efficacy, safety and cost of cefuroxime versus cephradine in acute pyelonephritis during pregnancy]. / Estudio prospectivo, randomizado, comparativo de la eficacia, seguridad y costos de cefuroxima vs cefradina en la pielonefritis aguda del embarazo.

BACKGROUND: Second generation cephalosporins (CFPs) are more active in the treatment of acute pyelonephritis during pregnancy but their cost is considerably higher than their predecessors. Cefuroxime, a second generation CFP with oral and parenteral presentations, might offer significant advantages and become a first choice antimicrobial in this setting. AIM: To compare the efficacy, safety and cost of cefuroxime and cephradine in the treatment of acute pyelonephritis in pregnancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Hospitalized women with 12 to 34 weeks of pregnancy, with clinical and bacteriological diagnosis of acute pyelonephritis, were randomly assigned to receive cefuroxime (Curocef(r), Glaxo Wellcome) 750 mg t.i.d, i.v. or cephradine 1 g q.i.d., i.v. If the isolated organism was resistant to the assigned drug the patient was excluded. Once patients were afebrile, they were switched to an oral form of the same antimicrobial. They were discharged according to the clinical status and treated for a total of 14 days. laboratory tests, including urine culture were requested during controls and at the end of follow-up at 28 days. RESULTS: One hundred and one patients were randomized: 49 to receive cephradine and 52 to receive cefuroxime. Patients in the cefuroxime group hed fewer febrile days (mean 1.7 vs 2.2, p < 0.05), faster clinical recovery (mean 2.7 vs 3.1 days, p < 0.05), a higher rate of bacteriological cure at 28 days (78.8% and 59.2%, p < 0.05) and lower rate of failure (21.2% vs 40.8% p < 0.05). The rate of resistance of isolated uropathogens was 14% to cephradine and 1% to cefuroxime. CONCLUSIONS: Cefuroxime can be considered as a first choice option in the treatment of acute pyelonephritis during pregnancy due to its tolerance, microbiological activity and efficacy.

An economic evaluation of levofloxacin versus cefuroxime axetil in the outpatient treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: To examine treatment costs of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adult outpatients given oral (p.o.) levofloxacin or cefuroxime axetil as initial therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with a primary diagnosis of CAP were enrolled in a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-controlled Phase III clinical trial. Both inpatients and outpatients were assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups: (1) intravenous (i.v.) or p.o. levofloxacin; or (2) i.v. ceftriaxone and/or p.o. cefuroxime axetil. METHODS: To make legitimate and meaningful cost comparisons between similar types of patients receiving drugs via the same route of administration (i.e., orally), this outpatient economic study examined the resource utilization of the 211 patients enrolled as outpatients who received oral formulations as initial treatment (levofloxacin, 103 patients; cefuroxime axetil, 108 patients). Resource utilization data and clinical trial data were collected concurrently. To generate cost estimates, Medicare cost estimates for resources were multiplied by the resource units used by patients in each treatment arm. RESULTS: Cost estimates indicated a total cost difference that favored the levofloxacin group (base case: $169; sensitivity analysis: $223 [P = .008]). The results for the base case were not significant (P = .094). In addition, within the cost categories, there was a statistically significant study drug cost differential favoring levofloxacin ($86; P = .0001 for both the base case and sensitivity analysis). CONCLUSION: Oral levofloxacin is less costly than oral cefuroxime axetil in the outpatient treatment of adults with CAP.