Cost-effectiveness Comparison of Ceftazidime/Avibactam Versus Meropenem in the Empirical Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-associated Pneumonia, in Italy.

PURPOSE: Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a fixed-dose combination antibiotic approved in Europe and the United States for patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP). The economic benefits of a new drug such as CAZ-AVI are required to be assessed against those of available comparators, from the perspective of health care providers and payers, through cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. The objective of this analysis was to compare the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of appropriate hospitalized patients with HAP/VAP caused by gram-negative pathogens, from the perspective of publicly funded health care in Italy (third-party perspective, based on the data from the REPROVE (Ceftazidime-Avibactam Versus Meropenem In Nosocomial Pneumonia, Including Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia) clinical study; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01808092). METHODS: A patient-level, sequential simulation model of the HAP/VAP clinical course was developed using spreadsheet software. The analysis focused on direct medical costs. The time horizon of the model selected was 5 years, with an annual discount rate of 3% on costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Clinical inputs for treatment comparisons were mainly obtained from the REPROVE clinical study data. In addition to clinical outcomes observed in the trial, the model incorporated impact of resistance pathogens, based on data from published studies and expert opinion. Certain assumptions were made for some model parameters due to a lack of data. FINDINGS: The analysis demonstrated that the intervention sequence (CAZ-AVI followed by colistin + high-dose meropenem) versus the comparator sequence (meropenem followed by colistin + high-dose meropenem) provided a better clinical cure rate (+13.52%), which led to a shorter hospital stay (-0.40 days per patient), and gains in the number of life-years (+0.195) and QALYs (+0.350) per patient. The intervention sequence had an estimated net incremental total cost of €1254 ($1401) per patient, and the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €3581 ($4000) per QALY gained, well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 ($33,507) per QALY in Italy. IMPLICATIONS: The model results showed that CAZ-AVI is expected to provide clinical benefits in hospitalized patients with HAP/VAP in Italy at an acceptable cost compared to meropenem.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceftazidime/avibactam compared to imipenem as empirical treatment for complicated urinary tract infections.

Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a novel, fixed-dose combination antibiotic that has been approved in Europe and the United States for patients with complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) based on results of a Phase III, randomized, comparative study (RECAPTURE study). The present analysis evaluated cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI as an empirical treatment for hospitalized patients with cUTIs from the Italian publicly funded healthcare (third-party payer) perspective. A sequential, patient-level simulation model was developed that followed the clinical course of cUTI and generated 5000 pairs of identical patients (CAZ-AVI or imipenem as empirical treatment). The model included additional impact of resistant pathogens; patients who did not respond to empirical treatment were switched to second-line treatment of colistin+high dose carbapenem in both groups. The time horizon of the model was five years, with an annual discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The analysis demonstrated that an intervention sequence (CAZ-AVI followed by colistin+high dose carbapenem) compared with a comparator sequence (imipenem followed by colistin+high dose carbapenem) was associated with a net incremental cost of €1015 per patient but provided better health outcomes in terms of clinical cure (97.65% vs. 91.08%; ∆ = 6.57%), shorter hospital stays (10.65 vs. 12.55 days; ∆ = 1.90 days), and QALYs gained per patient (4.190 vs. 4.063; ∆ = 0.126). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €8039/QALY, which is well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30 000/QALY in Italy. The results showed that CAZ-AVI is expected to be a cost-effective treatment compared with imipenem for cUTI in Italy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) as empirical treatment comparing to ceftolozane/tazobactam and to meropenem for complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI).

Background: The rising incidence of resistance to currently available antibiotics among pathogens, particularly Gram-negative pathogens, in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) has become a challenge for clinicians. Ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is a fixed-dose antibiotic approved in Europe and the United States for treating (in combination with metronidazole) cIAI in adult hospitalised patients who have limited or no alternative treatment options. The approval was based on the results of RECLAIM, a Phase III, parallel-group, comparative study (RECLAIM 1 [NCT01499290] and RECLAIM 2 [NCT01500239]). The objective of our study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole compared with 1) ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole and 2) meropenem, as an empiric treatment for the management of cIAI in Italy. Methods: A sequential, patient-level simulation model, with a 5-year time horizon and 3% annual discount rate (applied to both costs and health benefits), was developed using Microsoft Excel® to demonstrate the clinical course of the disease. The impact of resistant pathogens was included as an additional factor. Results: In the base-case analysis, the CAZ-AVI sequence (CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole followed by a colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem combination after treatment failure), when compared to sequences for ceftolozane/tazobactam (ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole followed by colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem after treatment failure) and meropenem (meropenem followed by colistin + tigecycline + high-dose meropenem after treatment failure), had better clinical outcomes with higher cure rates (93.04% vs. 91.52%; 92.98% vs. 90.24%, respectively), shorter hospital stays (∆ = - 0.38 and ∆ = - 1.24 days per patient, respectively), and higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient (4.021 vs. 3.982; 4.019 vs. 3.960, respectively). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio in the CAZ-AVI sequence was €4099 and €15,574 per QALY gained versus each comparator sequence, respectively, well below the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY accepted in Italy. Conclusions: The model results demonstrated that CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole could be a cost-effective alternative when compared with other antibiotic treatment options, as it is expected to provide better clinical benefits in hospitalised patients with cIAI in Italy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of parenteral antimicrobials for acute melioidosis in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Melioidosis is a common community-acquired infectious disease in northeast Thailand associated with overall mortality of approximately 40% in hospitalized patients, and over 70% in severe cases. Ceftazidime is recommended for parenteral treatment in patients with suspected melioidosis. Meropenem is increasingly used but evidence to support this is lacking. METHODS: A decision tree was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating non-severe and severe suspected acute melioidosis cases with either ceftazidime or meropenem. RESULTS: Empirical treatment with meropenem is likely to be cost-effective providing meropenem reduces mortality in severe cases by at least 9% and the proportion with subsequent culture-confirmed melioidosis is over 20%. CONCLUSIONS: In this context, treatment of severe cases with meropenem is likely to be cost-effective, while the evidence to support the use of meropenem in non-severe suspected melioidosis is not yet available.

The impact of a nationwide antibiotic restriction program on antibiotic usage and resistance against nosocomial pathogens in Turkey.

PURPOSE: Antimicrobial resistance among microorganisms is a global concern. In 2003, a nationwide antibiotic restriction program (NARP) was released in Turkey. In this study we evaluated the effect of NARP on antibiotic consumption, antimicrobial resistance, and cost. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data obtained from all of the four university hospitals, and one referral tertiary-care educational state hospital in Ankara. Antimicrobial resistance profiles of 14,233 selected microorganisms all grown in blood cultures and antibiotic consumption from 2001 to 2005 were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: A negative correlation was observed between the ceftriaxone consumption and the prevalence of ceftriaxone resistant E.coli and Klebsiella spp. (rho:-0.395, p:0.332 and rho:-0.627, p:0.037, respectively). The decreased usage of carbapenems was correlated with decreased carbapenems-resistant Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp (rho:0.155, p:0.712 and rho:0.180, p:0.668, respectively for imipenem). Methicillin resistance rates of S.aureus were decreased from 44% to 41%. After two years of NARP 5,389,155.82 USD saving occurred. CONCLUSION: NARP is effective in lowering the costs and antibiotic resistance.

The costs of treatment of early and chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in cystic fibrosis patients.

The aim of cystic fibrosis (CF) care is to improve both the life expectancy and quality of life of patients. However, rising costs and limited resources of health services must be taken into account. There are many different antibiotic strategies for therapy of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in CF patients. In this 5-year retrospective study we found that the cost of treatment of initial infection is considerably lower than the cost of treating chronic P. aeruginosa infections. The percentage distribution of costs of antibiotic treatment in relationship to the administration route was considerably different between outpatients and inpatients. We observed an increase in antibiotic costs with the age of the patient and the decrease in FEV(1)values. The implementation of early eradication treatment, in addition to decreasing the prevalence of patients chronically infected by P. aeruginosa, might also bring about a notable decrease in costs.

A prospective, controlled, randomized, non-blind, comparative study of the efficacy and safety of a once daily high dose of ceftriaxone plus ciprofloxacin versus thrice daily ceftazidime plus amikacin in empirical therapy for febrile neutropenic patients.

BACKGROUND: Empirical antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia is well established. The best regimen is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost of a once daily high dose of ceftriaxone plus ciprofloxacin versus thrice daily ceftazidime plus amikacin in neutropenic febrile patients. METHODS: Ninety-five patients with febrile neutropenia were included in a prospective, controlled, randomized, non-blind, comparative study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups (63 to the ceftriaxone/ciprofloxacin group and 32 to the ceftazidime/amikacin group) and evaluated as successes or failures according to defined criteria. Daily assessments were made of all patients and all adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: The overall incidence of documented infections was 45.9%: 24/47 (51.1%) in the ceftriaxone/ciprofloxacin group and 10/27 (37%) in the ceftazidime/amikacin group. There was a significant difference in clinical efficacy between the groups (p=0.011) at the end of therapy. The ceftriaxone/ciprofloxacin group had an overall incidence of resolution and improvement of 95.7% in comparison to 75% in the ceftazidime/amikacin group. Thirty-nine organisms were isolated, 26 (66.67%) gram-negative and 13 (33.33%) gram-positive. There was a low incidence of adverse events in both groups. CONCLUSION: The combination of a single, high dose of ceftriaxone plus ciprofloxacin daily was more effective than the standard combination of thrice daily ceftazidime plus amikacin with no significant adverse events in either group.

Cost-effectiveness study comparing cefoperazone-sulbactam to a three-drug combination for treating intraabdominal infections in an Indian health-care setting.

OBJECTIVE: This article presents the methodology and results of the pharmacoeconomic analysis of the Magnex Against Standard COmbination Therapy study comparing cefoperazone-sulbactam (Magnex) versus ceftazidime+ amikacin+metronidazole, in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. METHODS: This prospective, open label, phase IV study was conducted at 17 study sites in India and randomized subjects to receive either cefoperazone-sulbactam or the combination. Pharmacoeconomic analysis was included as a secondary objective and conducted in the clinical efficacy-evaluable (CEE) and the successfully treated patients. All comparisons between treatment groups were conducted using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Wilcoxon Two-Sample tests. All costs were reported as Indian Rupee (INR) and actual unit costs collected in 2006 were used for the analyses [1 USD approximately 40 INR; 1 Euro approximately 56 INR]. RESULTS: In the CEE and the successfully treated subset of patients, the average cost of treatment was numerically lower in the cefoperazone-sulbactam arm (not statistically significant). The analyses found that the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) for cefoperazone-sulbactam was INR 17,640.53 and that for the comparator group was INR 22,075.16. Additionally, the incremental CER results showed that the cost of treatment was INR 21,505.59 lower per additional successfully treated patient in the cefoperazone-sulbactam group. CONCLUSIONS: The present study was the first of its kind to be conducted in the "price sensitive" Indian health-care setting. Though study was not powered for the difference in average cost of treatments, there was a trend favoring cefoperazone sulbactam. The findings from this study should encourage further conduct of similar analyses and increase the knowledge regarding pharmacoeconomics in India.

Retrospective analysis of a new antibiotic chemoprophylaxis regimen in 170 patients undergoing endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the rate of infectious complications post endoscopic transspheinodal neurosurgery in patients receiving a new antibiotic chemoprophylaxis regimen. METHODS: Clinical records of 170 patients who received prophylaxis with a third-generation cephalosporin plus aminoglycoside (160 cases) or alone (10 cases) were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty-eight patients (16.4%) had CSF leakage. The postsurgical follow-up ranged from 3 months to 4 years. RESULTS: Of 170 patients, 2 (1.17%) developed infectious complications: 1 case of meningitis by Staphylococcus epidermidis and 1 case of sphenoid sinusitis (without microbiological diagnosis). In addition, asymptomatic sphenoid sinusitis was diagnosed in 2 other patients. The cost ranged from 22.50 to 33.34 euros/d. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of infectious complications was very low in patients receiving prophylaxis with a third-generation cephalosporin plus aminoglycoside or alone; because of the broad-spectrum of antibiotics and their high cost, this regimen could be used in at-risk patients (eg, smokers, patients with cerebrospinal leak, or patients with Cushing diseases).

Piperacillin/tazobactam vs ceftazidime in the treatment of neutropenic fever in patients with acute leukemia or following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation: a prospective randomized trial.

Piperacillin/tazobactam was compared with ceftazidime for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with acute leukemia or following autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Owing to inclusion criteria, it was possible for the same patient to be randomized several times. A total of 219 individual patients were admitted to a prospective randomized clinical study: 24 patients were included twice. Patients (23.5%) remained afebrile. Patients who developed febrile neutropenia were randomized to receive intravenous ceftazidime (n = 74 patients, group I) or piperacillin/tazobactam (n = 87 patients, group II). Response to first-line antibiotic treatment was seen in 55% (group I) and 53% (group II). After the addition of vancomycin, a further 19% (group I) and 24% (group II) of the patients became afebrile. Causes of fever were: microbiologically documented infection in 36 and 34 patients of group I and II; Clostridium difficile in eight and 12 patients of group I and II, and fever of unknown origin in 30 and 41 patients of group I and II. One patient died in each group. Single-agent therapy with piperacillin/tazobactam is as effective as ceftazidime in the treatment of neutropenic fever and is well tolerated. Direct and indirect costs of both treatment regimes are equivalent.

Cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime by continuous infusion versus intermittent infusion for nosocomial pneumonia.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if continuous-infusion ceftazidime is more cost-effective and efficacious than intermittent infusion in patients with nosocomial pneumonia. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, randomized trial. SETTING: Large, community teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with nosocomial pneumonia. INTERVENTIONS: Ceftazidime 3 g/day was administered as a continuous infusion or as 2 g 3 times/day by intermittent infusion to treat nosocomial pneumonia in the ICU. Patients also received tobramycin 7 mg/kg once/day. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were evaluable; 17 received continuous infusion and 18 intermittent infusion. Clinical efficacy (94% and 83% successful outcomes with continuous and intermittent infusion, respectively), adverse events, and length of stay did not vary significantly between groups. Costs associated with continuous infusion, $627 +/- 388, were significantly lower (p < or = 0.001) than with intermittent infusion, $1007 +/- 430. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous infusion of ceftazidime is a cost-effective alternative to intermittent infusion for nosocomial pneumonia in the ICU.

Single-daily ceftriaxone plus amikacin versus thrice-daily ceftazidime plus amikacin as empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Empirical antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenic patients has been the mainstay of treatment for many years. Beta-lactam antibiotics and aminoglycosides have been the most frequently used drug combination. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, tolerance and costs of single-daily ceftriaxone plus amikacin versus thrice-daily dose of ceftazidime plus amikacin. METHODOLOGY: One hundred and ninety-one episodes of fever and neutropenia in 128 patients from October 1997 to December 1998 were included in a prospective, open-label, single-centre study. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group and evaluated as successes or failures according to defined criteria. Daily assessments were made on all patients and all adverse events recorded. Univariate and multivariate analysis of outcomes and a cost analysis were carried out. RESULTS: There were 176 evaluable patient-episodes with 51.1% in the single-daily ceftriaxone-amikacin group and 48.9% in the ceftazidime-amikacin group. There were 50 positive blood cultures: 12 Gram-positive bacteria, 33 Gram-negative bacteria and five fungi. Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) accounted for 14% of total isolates. The overall success rate was 55.5% in the ceftriaxone group compared to 51.2% in the ceftazidime group (P = 0.56). Mean time to defervescence was 4.2 days in the single-daily group and 4.3 days in the thrice-daily group. There were nine infection-related deaths; five in the single-daily ceftriaxone group. The daily cost of the once-daily regime was 42 Malaysian Ringgit less than the thrice-daily regime. There was a low incidence of adverse effects in both groups, although ototoxicity was not evaluable. CONCLUSIONS: The once-daily regime of ceftriaxone plus amikacin was as effective as the 'standard' combination of thrice-daily ceftazidime and amikacin with no significant adverse effects in either group. The convenience and substantial cost benefit of the once-daily regime will be particularly useful in developing countries with limited health resources and in centres with a low prevalence of P. aeruginosa.

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic evaluation of ceftazidime continuous infusion vs intermittent bolus injection in septicaemic melioidosis.

AIMS: Experimental studies have suggested that constant intravenous infusion would be preferable to conventional intermittent bolus administration of beta-lactam antibiotics for serious Gram-negative infections. Severe melioidosis (Burkholderia pseudomallei infection) carries a mortality over 40% despite treatment with high dose ceftazidime. The aim of this study was to measure the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of continuous infusion of ceftazidime vs intermittent bolus dosing in septicaemic melioidosis. METHODS: Patients with suspected septicaemic melioidosis were randomised to receive ceftazidime 40 mg kg(-1) 8 hourly by bolus injection or 4 mg kg(-1) h(-1) by constant infusion following a 12 mg kg(-1) priming dose and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were compared. RESULTS: Of the 34 patients studied 16 (59%) died. Twenty patients had cultures positive for B. pseudomallei of whom 12 (60%) died. The median MIC90 of B. pseudomallei was 2 mg l(-1), giving a minimum target concentration (4*MIC) of 8 mg l(-1). The median (range) estimated total apparent volume of distribution, systemic clearance and terminal elimination half-lives of ceftazidime were 0.468 (0.241-0. 573) l kg(-1), 0.058 (0.005-0.159) l kg(-1) h(-1) and 7.74 (1.95-44.71) h, respectively. Clearance of ceftazidime and creatinine clearance were correlated closely (r = 0.71; P < 0.001) and there was no evidence of significant nonrenal clearance. CONCLUSIONS: Simulations based on these data and the ceftazidime sensitivity of the B. pseudomallei isolates indicated that administration by constant infusion would allow significant dose reduction and cost saving. With conventional 8 h intermittent dosing to patients with normal renal function, plasma ceftazidime concentrations could fall below the target concentration but this would be unlikely with a constant infusion. Correction for renal failure, which is common in patients with meliodosis is Clearance = k(*) creatinine clearance where k = 0.72. Calculation of a loading dose gives median (range) values of loading dose, DL of 18.7 mg kg(-1) (9.5-23) and infusion rate I = 3.5 mg k(-1) h(-1) (0.4-13) (which equals 84 mg kg(-1) day(-1)). A nomogram for adjustment in renal failure is given.

Experience with ceftazidime parenteral-to-parenteral dosage stepdown in the empiric treatment of febrile neutropenia.

We assessed the clinical and economic impact of a new parenteral-toparenteral stepdown program involving ceftazidime for the treatment of febrile neutropenia. This was a two-phase (before and after), 12-month, single-center, prospective study with a historical control. Ninety-eight ceftazidime treatment courses (47 preintervention, 51 postintervention) were administered for management of febrile neutropenia in 85 adults with hematologic malignancies. Multidisciplinary creation and promotion of parenteral-to-parenteral ceftazidime stepdown criteria were applied at the discretion of the health care team. Patient demographics between phases were similar. Only 2 (4%) treatment courses before the intervention involved parenteral-to-parenteral dosage stepdown, compared with 34 (67%) after the intervention (p<0.00001). Mean number of total ceftazidime doses/treatment course and mean duration of therapy did not change between phases. Clinical cure or improvement was identified in 74% and 80% of treatment courses before and after the intervention, respectively. The two main reasons for discontinuing the drug before the intervention were recovery of neutrophil count (60%) and adverse reactions (19%). Neutrophil count recovery (59%) and hospital discharge (14%) were the two most common reasons for discontinuation after the intervention. Of 34 stepdown treatment courses after the intervention, 3 (9%) failed to meet established stepdown criteria, and 2 of these required stepdown reversal. Ancillary antibacterial drugs and treatment course outcomes were similar between phases. Total ceftazidime acquisition cost for 704 treatment days in the preintervention phase was $52,473 CAN compared with $54,778 CAN for 907 days of therapy in the postintervention phase. The mean acquisition cost/ceftazidime treatment course was $1100 CAN and did not differ between phases. The mean daily cost of ceftazidime therapy was lower after the intervention ($60.39 vs $74.54 CAN) as a result of a greater frequency of stepdown (p<0.001). Assuming an equivalent number of treatment days, the projected annual acquisition cost avoidance associated with this stepdown program was $19,900 CAN.

Long-acting versus short-acting cephalosporins for preoperative prophylaxis in breast surgery: A randomized double-blind trial involving 1,766 patients.

Postoperative infectious complications after breast surgery may result in significant morbidity, psychological trauma, and additional costs. We assessed the efficacy of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for surgery in a randomized, double-blind trial of 1,766 patients undergoing breast surgery. From January 1, 1996 to August 31, 1997, all eligible patients were assigned randomly to receive a single dose of ceftriaxone (2 g) or ceftazidime (2 g) given intravenously at the induction of anesthesia, with no further doses. The groups were similar with respect to age, operative procedure, operative time and time to discharge after operation. The patients who received ceftriaxone prophylaxis had 54. 4% fewer overall infections than those who received ceftazidime prophylaxis. Wound infection occurred in 0.45% of the ceftriaxone recipients (2 of 883) and 0.91% of the ceftazidime recipients (8 of 883). This prospective randomized double-blind study showed that the long-acting regimen containing ceftriaxone is more cost-effective than the short-acting ceftazidime in preventing postoperative infections in patients subjected to breast surgery.

Cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime or imipenem/cilastatin versus ceftriaxone + aminoglycoside in the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients in Germany.

A three-pronged cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic cancer patients was conducted. It included a review of 37 randomized, controlled studies in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1980-1996). Clinical outcomes as well as costs of treatment with imipenem/cilastatin, ceftazidime and ceftriaxone + aminoglycoside were compared. Primary therapy and modification, respectively, were successful in 62 and 27% of patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin, in 56 and 31% with ceftazidime and in 41 and 13% with ceftriaxone + aminoglycoside. From the perspective of a 1,800-bed teaching hospital, the average overall cost per successfully treated patient was DM 7,475 with imipenem/cilastatin, DM 7,810 with ceftazidime and DM 8,963 with ceftriaxone + netilmicin (DM 1 = USD 0.56; 7/97). The costs for the German national economy were imipenem/cilastatin DM 23,828, ceftazidime DM 24,985 and ceftriaxone + netilmicin DM 29,838.

Randomized trial comparing oral ciprofloxacin plus penicillin V with amikacin plus carbenicillin or ceftazidime for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients.

Aminoglycoside-containing combination therapy has been the standard empirical approach for febrile neutropenic cancer patients. With the advent of the broad-spectrum oral fluoroquinolones, it is now possible to evaluate an initial empirical alternative therapy. A prospective randomized study was conducted comparing oral ciprofloxacin plus penicillin V (group A) with amikacin plus carbenicillin or ceftazidime (group B). Main criteria for eligibility were febrile patients with solid tumor or nonlymphoblastic lymphoma, a Zubrod PS equal to 1 or 2, no diarrhea, mucositis, or long-term central venous catheter. A total of 108 consecutive neutropenic febrile episodes were randomized (5 exclusions); 55 episodes were assigned to group A and 48 to group B. Most febrile episodes were of unknown origin. There were 10 microbiologically documented episodes with two cases of bacteremia. Both regimens were well tolerated. Oral regimen was substantially cheaper than parenteral regimen. Treatment success without regimen modification was 94.5% for group A and 93.8% for group B (p = .86; CI -0.08-0.10). Oral therapy with ciprofloxacin and penicillin V is a safe alternative to standard parenteral therapy in this low-risk group of neutropenic patients, with unquestionable cost containment.

Pharmacoeconomic comparison of sequential IV/oral ciprofloxacin versus ceftazidime in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia.

A retrospective, cost-effectiveness analysis was performed on 106 clinically evaluable patients who participated in a multi-centre, randomized study of sequential IV/oral ciprofloxacin therapy versus ceftazidime for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. Although nearly half of the ciprofloxacin patients received sequential therapy, the majority were treated with a full IV regimen. Clinical success rates and antibiotic-related adverse events were similar for the ciprofloxacin and ceftazidime groups. Per patient and per day costs of antibiotic acquisition; preparation and administration; treatment of adverse events, and clinical failures were compared. Decision analysis revealed that ciprofloxacin therapy was cost-effective compared to ceftazidime 2 g q8h. Varying the probability of clinical success between 60-99% failed to change the economic decision; costs for ciprofloxacin were always lower than for ceftazidime. Further sensitivity analyses demonstrated that if the ceftazidime price was reduced by 50% (equivalent to 1 g q8h), treatment costs would be similar to ciprofloxacin therapy. Increasing the ciprofloxacin price by 50% (equivalent to a q8h frequency) produced per patient costs similar to ceftazidime, although ciprofloxacin therapy retained a lower cost per day (p < 0.0002). For the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia, ciprofloxacin therapy was cost-effective compared to ceftazidime.