Search

Background: Numerous combination and single-agent antimicrobial regimens are available for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. Selection of empiric agents must be directed at providing reliable activity against endotoxin-generating Escherichia coli, other gram-negative facultative bacteria, and anaerobes such as Bacteroides fragilis. Safety profiles, pharmacokinetic profiles, and cost-effectiveness must also be considered. Use of fluoroquinolones for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections has recently been advocated., Methods: We review 2 prospective, comparative clinical trials conducted between 1992 and 2002 that evaluated the efficacy and safety of IV ciprofloxacin in patients with intra-abdominal infections. Separate pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted for each study are also reviewed., Results: A total of 4 ciprofloxacin studies (2 clinical, 2 pharmacoeconomic) comprise the database. The combination of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole was at least as effective as imipenem/cilastatin and clinically more effective than piperacillin/tazobactam therapy, based on clinical success end points. In 1 trial, treatment success for the clinically valid population was reported for 84% (93/111) of patients treated with IV ciprofloxacin/metronidazole, 86% (91/106) of those treated with IV/oral ciprofloxacin/metronidazole, and 81% of those treated with IV imipenem/cilastatin (91/113). The IV/oral ciprofloxacin/metronidazole regimen had a statistically significant lower mean infection-related cost than the IV only ciprofloxacin/metronidazole plus imipenem groups (difference of approximately 1100 US dollars; P = 0.029). In the second clinical trial, clinical resolution rates were statistically different for patients receiving IV/oral ciprofloxacin/metronidazole (74%) versus IV piperacillin/tazobactam therapy (63%; P = 0.047). Ciprofloxacin/metronidazole was more cost-effective compared with piperacillin/tazobactam (2200 US dollars-3600 US dollars lower cost-effective ratios per patient) regardless of whether the patient had a diagnosis of appendicitis or whether a switch to an oral drug was permissible., Conclusions: In the studies reviewed herein, the combination of ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole was an effective and safe regimen for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. This regimen has potential advantages over exclusively IV regimens, including the option of sequential IV/oral therapy, patient convenience, cost savings, and reduced hospital stay.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness hreshold of a ciprofloxacin 0.3% and dexamethasone 0.1% (CD) otic suspension relative to olfloxacin otic solution (OFX) for the treatment of acute otitis media in pediatric patients with tympanostomy tubes (AOMT)., Methods: This study used a decision-analytic model to simulate the costs and consequences of the ototopical treatment of AOMT. The AOMT model consisted of 3 tiers of antimicrobial therapy. Each successive tier represented the repeat treatment of clinical failures from the preceding tier. Patients were modeled for treatment until cured or until third-tier therapy was complete, at which time patients were considered cured. First-tier therapy modeled a comparison of CD and OFX using efficacy rates taken from a randomized clinical trial with a population of 599 patients. Second-tier therapy modeled the use of amoxicillin and clavulanic acid using an efficacy rate taken from the medical literature. Third-tier therapy was modeled as being pathogen specific and could follow 1 of 3 possible clinical pathways: (1) PO fluconazole, (2) IM ceftriaxone, or (3) IV antibiotics administered in a hospital setting. Third-tier therapeutic pathway probabilities were based on the microbiologic spectrum of the treatment failures from the clinical trial. Cost information (in year-2003 US dollars) was taken from accepted cost reference sources and presented from the perspective of a third-party payer. The economic outcome of interest was the cost-effectiveness threshold of CD relative to OFX., Results: Given the model parameters, CD had a cost-effectiveness threshold value of 4.5 times the wholesale acquisition cost of OFX. Based on actual cost, first-tier CD therapy was more cost-effective than OFX up to a threshold price of US 152.64 dollars., Conclusion: In this decision-analytic model, CD was more cost-effective than OFX for AOMT therapy in pediatric patients up to a threshold price of 4.5 times the price of OFX.

This retrospective cohort study used North Carolina Medicaid paid-claims data to assess clinical and economic outcomes of treatments for urinary tract infection (UTI). The study population comprised female Medicaid recipients, between 15 and 64 years of age, with a paid claim filed for a primary diagnosis of UTI or acute UTI from January 1 to June 30, 1994, who were treated with ciprofloxacin, nitrofurantoin, or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMZ). Patients had follow-up for 6 months after the primary diagnosis. Patients who did not receive further treatment for UTI with 1 of the 3 drugs within 30 days after initial treatment were assumed to be cured. Costs were measured as the sum of reimbursements for UTI-related medical services and drug treatments. Outcomes for 409 patients were assessed. Cure rates of initial treatment with ciprofloxacin, nitrofurantoin, and TMP/SMZ were 81%, 88%, and 93%, respectively. Cost-effectiveness ratios of initial treatment with the 3 drugs were $150.80, $81.20, and $69.00, respectively. When efficacy rates generated from published randomized clinical studies were applied, cost-effectiveness ratios for the 3 drugs were $130.96, $86.17, and $72.00, respectively. A decision model of treatment pattern and associated costs is presented. Several patient variables indicate that the ciprofloxacin group included more severe cases of UTI than did the other groups. Study limitations, confounders, and future research suggestions are discussed. Our results show that treatment for >7 days results in a better cure rate regardless of the drug used than does treatment for < or =7 days and that TMP/SMZ is the most cost-effective of the 3 drugs for UTI or acute UTI.