Search

Objectives: In this study, we evaluated the clinical outcomes associated with the use of highly bioavailable oral antibiotics (fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) compared with the less-bioavailable oral antibiotics (β-lactams) in gram-negative bloodstream infections (BSIs)., Methods: Among hospitalized older adult patients in Ontario, Canada, discharged home on oral treatment for gram-negative BSI between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2019, we used a matched cohort design to compare outcomes among those receiving highly versus less-bioavailable agents; hard-matching 1:1 on sex, BSI pathogen (Escherichia coli vs. non-E. coli), and infection source (urinary vs. non-urinary/unknown source) along with a propensity score, incorporating specific pathogen, patient, and infection characteristics. The primary outcome was the composite of 90-day all-cause mortality, recurrent BSI with the same pathogen (genus and species), and re-admission to any Ontario hospital., Results: A total of 2012 patients were included in the study (1006 in each bioavailability category). Those who received highly (compared with less) bioavailable antibiotics at discharge had lower rates of the composite outcome (171/1006 [17.0%] vs. 216/1006 [21.5%]), adjusted odds ratio being 0.74 (95% CI, 0.60-0.92). Recurrent BSI at 90 days was the main driver for the composite outcome occurring in 64 (5.4%) and 107 (9.4%) patients of the highly and less-bioavailable groups, respectively (p < 0.001) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.78)., Discussion: Use of highly (compared with less) bioavailable antibiotics at discharge was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes among patients with gram-negative BSIs., (Copyright © 2022 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gram-negative pathogens, such as Escherichia coli, are common causes of bloodstream infections (BSIs) and increasingly demonstrate antimicrobial resistance. Molecular rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) offer faster pathogen identification and susceptibility results, but higher costs compared with conventional methods. We determined the cost-effectiveness of the BioFire FilmArray Blood Culture Identification (BCID) Panel, as a type of mRDT, compared with conventional methods in the identification of E. coli BSIs., Methods: We constructed a decision analytic model comparing BCID with conventional methods in the identification and susceptibility testing of hospitalized patients with E. coli BSIs from the perspective of the public healthcare payer. Model inputs were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by determining the per-patient admission cost, the QALYs garnered and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) where applicable. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model. All costs reflect 2019 Canadian dollars., Results: The Monte Carlo probabilistic analyses resulted in cost savings ($27 070.83 versus $35 649.81) and improved QALYs (8.65 versus 7.10) in favour of BCID. At a willingness to pay up to $100 000, BCID had a 72.6%-83.8% chance of being cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed length of stay and cost per day of hospitalization to have the most substantial impact on costs and QALYs., Conclusions: BCID was found to be cost-saving when used to diagnose E. coli BSI compared with conventional testing. Cost savings were most influenced by length of stay and cost per day of hospitalization., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)