Search

Background: Acne affects a large proportion of the Canadian population and has psychosocial and financial consequences., Objective: We provide cost information for treatments recommended by the Canadian acne guidelines., Methods: Highest level recommendations were selected for 3-month usage cost., Results: Three-month estimated treatment costs were as follows: topical retinoids ($14.40-$73.80), benzoyl peroxide (BPO; $6.75), fixed-dose BPO-clindamycin ($40.95-$44.10) and BPO-adapalene ($73.80), oral antibiotics ($25.20 for tetracycline 250 mg qid; $52.20 and $52.74 for doxycycline 50 mg bid and 100 mg od, respectively), and hormonal therapy ($26.46-$37.80 for ethinyl estradiol [EE] 0.030 mg/drospirenone 3mg and $75.60-108.99 for EE 0.035 mg/cyproterone acetate 2 mg). Oral isotretinoin 3-month costs ranged from $393.96 to $478.80., Conclusions: Awareness of costs of recommended treatments may facilitate improved outcomes by increasing procurement and adherence., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Unlabelled: Severe infections with multiresistant bacteria (MRB) are a medical challenge and a financial burden for hospitals. The adequate antibiotic therapy is a key issue in multiresistant bacteria management. Several major cost drivers have been identified. Remarkably drug acquisition costs are not necessarily included. Most significant are the length of stay in hospital, the hours of mechanical ventilation and the time treated on an intensive care unit. - In a systematic review of the literature the following aspects were investigated: - Do generic treatment strategies contribute in cost savings? - Are there specific results for recent antibiotics? - Early adequate and effective antimicrobial treatment, switch from i.v. to oral therapy, adjusted duration of therapy and adherence to guidelines have been found to be successful strategies. - Looking at specific antibiotics, the best evidence for cost-effectiveness is found for Linezolid in treatment of cSSTI as well as in HAP. Daptomycin shows good economic results in bloodstream infections, so possibly being a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin. Looking at tigecycline the published data show neither higher costs nor savings compared to imipeneme. Doripenem as one of the newest therapy options has proven to be highly cost-saving in HAP when compared with imipenem. However, most analyses are based on pharmacoeconomic modelling rather than on directly analysing trial data or real life clinical populations. -, Conclusion: Using modern antibiotics in whole is not more expensive than using established therapies. Modern antibiotics are cost-effective and sometimes even cost-saving. This is especially true if an effective therapy is initiated as early as possible.

Aim: Tigecycline is a broad spectrum antibiotic indicated by official and health ministry guidelines for use in second course therapy for complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI). In certain objective and subjective circumstances, however, its use in first-line therapy may be appropriate. Without entering into a detailed evaluation of use appropriateness, the aim of this study was to determine the economic impact on hospital budget expenditure for two different prescribing practices: use of tigecycline in second or first-line therapy. This empirical study was carried out at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) (chief, Dr. Alberto Costantini), Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona., Methods: Cost determination was based on health care processes as revealed by field survey at the ICU. Mapping of the health care processes was not derived from official protocols or from an ex post analysis of medical records but rather directly from descriptions of the processes as referred by the ICU physicians and health care staff, and then summarized in flow charts and approved by the ICU chief., Results: The assumption was that tigecycline, because it has a broader spectrum of action than a first-line antibiotic, would more probably clear infections when used in the first course of antibiotic therapy. Notwithstanding this advantage, tigecycline has a higher daily dose cost than first-line antibiotics. This study compared the higher costs incurred by the use of tigecycline as a first-line antibiotic versus potential savings obtained with such use, also in view of the prevention of possible treatment failures and the additional cost of administering a second course of antibiotic therapy, wherein the result would depend on the number of preventable treatment failures., Conclusion: The analysis concludes with a discussion and graphic illustrations comparing the differential probable treatment success which would render the two treatment alternatives economically indifferent.

The aim of this study was to determine the economic impact on hospital budget expenditure for two different prescribing practices: use of tigecycline in second or first-line therapy (when appropriate). This empirical study was carried out at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) (Chief, Dr. Alberto Costantini), Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona. Cost determination was based on health care processes as revealed by field survey at the ICU. Mapping of the health care processes was neither derived from official protocols nor from an ex-post analysis of medical records but rather directly from descriptions of the processes as referred by the ICU physicians and health care staff, and then summarized in flow charts and approved by the ICU chief. The assumption was that tigecycline, because of its broader spectrum of action, would more probably clear infections when used in the first course of antibiotic therapy. Notwithstanding this advantage, tigecycline has a higher daily dose cost than first-line antibiotics. This study compared the higher costs incurred by the use of tigecycline as a first-line antibiotic versus potential savings obtained with such use, also in view of the prevention of possible treatment failures and the additional cost of administering a second course of antibiotic therapy, wherein the result would depend on the number of preventable treatment failures. The analysis concludes with a discussion and graphic illustrations comparing the differential probable treatment success which would render the two treatment alternatives economically indifferent.

Minocycline is a semi-synthetic, second-generation tetracycline. It was introduced in 1972 and has both antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties. Minocycline is used for a variety of infectious diseases and in acne. Even today, new indications beyond the antibacterial indications are being investigated such as its use in neurologic diseases. Formerly, minocycline was thought to have a superior efficacy in the treatment of inflammatory acne, especially with respect to antibacterial-resistant Propionibacterium acnes. A thorough review of the literature, however, shows that minocycline is not more effective in acne than other tetracyclines. Compared with first-generation tetracyclines, minocycline has a better pharmacokinetic profile, and compared with doxycycline it is not phototoxic. However, minocycline has an increased risk of severe adverse effects compared with other tetracyclines. It may induce hypersensitivity reactions affecting the liver, lung, kidneys, or multiple organs (Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms [DRESS] syndrome) in the first weeks of treatment and, with long-term treatment, may cause autoimmune reactions (systemic lupus erythematosus, autoimmune hepatitis). In addition, CNS symptoms, such as dizziness, are more frequent compared with other tetracyclines. Long-term treatment may induce hyperpigmentation of the skin or other organs. Resistance of P. acnes to minocycline also occurs, dependent on the prescribing behavior. Considering the aspects of efficacy, its adverse effect profile, resistance, price, and alternatives, minocycline is no longer considered the first-line antibacterial in the treatment of acne.

Background: Increasing antimicrobial resistance and infection complications pose challenges to optimal antibiotic therapy. Paucity of new antibiotics (and the eventual bacterial resistance they face) highlights the critical need for more appropriate use of broadly effective agents, which may help to thwart the dramatic rise in global resistance. Single agents that can be combined effectively with others, if needed, promise the simplest overall utility. Approved in 2005 to treat complicated skin and intra-abdominal infections, tigecycline is a novel extended-spectrum minocycline derivative that circumvents bacterial resistance, as it is unaffected by efflux pumps and ribosomal protection. However, tigecycline should not be used as empiric monotherapy for treatment of health-care associated infections known or suspected to be owing to Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Proteus spp., Objective: This article summarizes the demonstrated clinical utility of tigecycline so far., Methods: A MEDLINE search examined authoritative published clinical studies, reviews and case reports detailing the clinical record of tigecycline since 2004., Results/conclusion: Tigecycline continues to maintain satisfactory profiles of safety, efficacy and antimicrobial resistance avoidance. Regardless, continued surveillance is needed to detect reduced susceptibility and resistance against both community and nosocomial pathogens. Judicious use of agents reserved for multidrug resistant pathogens is vital to preserve their effectiveness.

Minocycline is an oral tetracycline that, unlike some other drugs in its class, is a once-daily treatment and need not be taken on an empty stomach.1 Such potential advantages together with preferential use in secondary care helped to establish minocycline as the oral tetracycline of choice for acne.2,3 However, concerns over the safety of minocycline and the lack of therapeutic advantage over other tetracyclines have challenged this view.1,4,5 Here we consider how trends in prescribing of minocycline have changed in the UK in recent years.

Tigecycline (pronounced tie-ge-sigh-cleen; Tygacil--Wyeth) is a broad-spectrum antibacterial and the first glycylcycline to be marketed in the UK. It is active against certain resistant bacteria, including meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and bacteria that produce extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL). Tigecycline is licensed for intravenous treatment of adults with complicated skin and soft tissue infections, and complicated intra-abdominal infections. We review tigecycline and assess its place for these infections.

Background: Duration of intravenous (IV) treatment, surgical/radiologic interventions for infection control, and hospital length of stay (LOS) are important cost considerations in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs)., Methods: Data were pooled from two multinational, double-blind studies conducted in hospitalized adults with cIAIs who were randomized (1:1) to receive tigecycline (100 mg IV initial dose then 50 mg IV every 12 h) or imipenem-cilastatin (500 mg IV every 6 h) for 5 to 14 days in order to assess tigecycline safety and efficacy. This report focuses on developing predictors of cure and health care resource utilization, including the need for repeat surgical/radiologic interventions, duration of IV antibiotic therapy, and hospital LOS. Multiple regression models were applied for each of the above outcomes, incorporating both baseline and on-treatment potential covariates. Logistic modeling was used for categorical outcomes (cure; repeat surgical/radiologic interventions) and least squares modeling for continuous outcomes (duration of IV antibiotic therapy; LOS). Stepwise selection was used to retain only those predictors found to be significant (p < 0.05) independent risk factors., Results: The most common causative pathogen was Escherichia coli (63.0%), with 63.3% of the patients exhibiting polymicrobial infections. The most common cIAI diagnosis was complicated appendicitis (51.9%). Lack of clinical cure (+ 6.1 days; p < 0.0001), perforation of the intestine (+3.7 days; p < 0.0001), an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) score >15 (+3.1 days; p=0.039), abnormal plasma sodium concentration (+3.7 days; p=0.026), and repeat surgical/radiologic intervention (+2.2 days; p=0.0097) were identified as key risk factors for longer LOS. Inadequate source control was associated with reduced odds of cure, longer IV treatment duration (+1.5 days; p=0.007), and longer LOS. The treatment groups did not differ in terms of LOS, IV treatment duration, or clinical cure., Conclusion: Tigecycline was similar to imipenem-cilastatin in terms of both efficacy and health resource utilization. Risk factors identified in this study for both outcome measures are offered as support for guiding clinical practice.

Tigecycline (GAR-936) is the first glycylcycline antibiotic to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The drug overcomes the 2 major resistance mechansisms of tetracycline: drug-specific efflux pump acquisition and ribosomal protection. Tigecycline is active against many gram-positive and -negative organisms, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-intermediate and -resistant enterococci, and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. It is also active against many anaerobic bacteria, as well as atypical pathogens, including rapidly growing, nontuberculous mycobacteria. Tigecycline is concentrated in cells and is eliminated primarily via biliary excretion. Diminished renal function does not significantly alter its systemic clearance. Furthermore, tigecycline does not interfere with common cytochrome P450 enzymes, making pharmacokinetic drug interactions uncommon. It provides parenteral therapy for complicated skin/skin-structure and intra-abdominal infections. The only prominent adverse effects are associated with tolerability, most notably nausea and vomiting. Tigecycline will be most useful as empirical therapy for polymicrobial infections, especially in cases in which deep tissue penetration is needed or in which multidrug-resistant pathogens are suspected.

Patients with moderate or severe acne vulgaris, or an inadequate response to topical treatments, are often treated with oral antibacterials, in particular, tetracyclines. Minocycline is one of the most commonly prescribed tetracyclines in acne, the predominant use for this drug. In 2005, around 2.5 million prescriptions for oral tetracyclines were dispensed in England at a cost to the NHS of over pound 21 million, and minocycline accounted for 40% of this expenditure. The drug is often recommended with claims that it is more effective, less likely to cause bacterial resistance, and easier to take than other tetracyclines. Here we consider the use of minocycline for acne.

Objectives: To determine the relative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of five of the most commonly used antimicrobial preparations for treating mild to moderate facial acne in the community; the propensity of each regimen to give rise to local and systemic adverse events; whether pre-existing bacterial resistance to the prescribed antibiotic resulted in reduced efficacy; and whether some antimicrobial regimens were less likely to give rise to resistant propionibacterial strains., Design: This was a parallel group randomised assessor-blind controlled clinical trial. It was a pragmatic design with intention-to-treat analysis. All treatments were given for 18 weeks, after a 4-week treatment free period. Outcomes were measured at 0, 6, 12 and 18 weeks., Setting: Primary care practices and colleges in and around Nottingham and Leeds, and one practice in Stockton-on-Tees, England., Participants: Participants were 649 people aged 12--39 years, all with mild to moderate inflammatory acne of the face., Interventions: Study participants were randomised into one of five groups: 500 mg oral oxytetracycline (non-proprietary) twice daily (b.d.) + topical vehicle control b.d.; 100 mg oral Minocin MR (minocycline) once daily (o.d.) + topical vehicle control b.d.; topical Benzamycin (3% erythromycin + 5% benzoyl peroxide) b.d. + oral placebo o.d.; topical Stiemycin (2% erythromycin) o.d. + topical Panoxyl Aquagel (5% benzoyl peroxide) o.d. + oral placebo o.d., and topical Panoxyl Aquagel (5% benzoyl peroxide) b.d. + oral placebo o.d. (the active comparator group)., Main Outcome Measures: The two primary outcome measures were: (1) the proportion of patients with at least moderate self-assessed improvement as recorded on a six-point Likert scale, and (2) change in inflamed lesion count (red spots)., Results: The best response rates were seen with two of the topical regimens (erythromycin plus benzoyl peroxide administered separately o.d. or in a combined proprietary formulation b.d.), compared with benzoyl peroxide alone, oxytetracycline (500 mg b.d.) and minocycline (100 mg o.d.), although differences were small. The percentage of participants with at least moderate improvement was 53.8% for minocycline (the least effective) and 66.1% for the combined erythromycin/benzoyl peroxide formulation (the most effective); the adjusted odds ratio for these two treatments was 1.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 2.90]. Similar efficacy rankings were obtained using lesion counts, acne severity scores and global rating by assessor. Benzoyl peroxide was the most cost-effective and minocycline the least cost-effective regimen (ratio of means 12.3; difference in means -0.051 units/GBP, 95% CI -0.063 to -0.039). The efficacy of oxytetracycline was similar to that of minocycline, but at approximately one-seventh of the cost. For all regimens, the largest reductions in acne severity were recorded in the first 6 weeks. Reductions in disability scores using the Dermatology Quality of Life Scales were largest for both topical erythromycin-containing regimens and minocycline. The two topical erythromycin-containing regimens produced the largest reductions in the prevalence and population density of cutaneous propionibacteria, including antibiotic-resistant variants, and these were equally effective in participants with and without erythromycin-resistant propionibacteria. The clinical efficacy of both tetracyclines was compromised in participants colonised by tetracycline-resistant propionibacteria. None of the regimens promoted an overall increase in the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant strains. Systemic adverse events were more common with the two oral antibiotics. Local irritation was more common with the topical treatments, particularly benzoyl peroxide. Residual acne was present in most participants (95%) at the end of the study., Conclusions: The response of mild to moderate inflammatory acne to antimicrobial treatment in the community is not optimal. Only around half to two-thirds of trial participants reported at least a moderate improvement over an 18-week study period; extending treatment beyond 12 weeks increased overall benefit slightly. Around one-quarter dropped out when using such treatments, and 55% sought further treatment after 18 weeks. Topical antimicrobial therapies performed at least as well as oral antibiotics in terms of clinical efficacy. Benzoyl peroxide was the most cost-effective and minocycline the least cost-effective therapy for facial acne. The efficacy of all three topical regimens was not compromised by pre-existing propionibacterial resistance. Benzoyl peroxide was associated with a greater frequency and severity of local irritant reactions. It is suggested that the use of a combination of topical benzoyl peroxide and erythromycin gives less irritation and better quality of life. There was little difference between erythromycin plus benzoyl peroxide administered separately and the combined proprietary formulation in terms of efficacy or local irritation, except that the former was nearly three times more cost-effective. The data on cost-effectiveness, and outcomes in patients with resistant propionibacterial floras, did not support the first line use of minocycline for mild to moderate inflammatory acne of the face. Three priority areas for clinical research in acne are: defining end-points in acne trials (i.e. what is a satisfactory outcome?); developing and validating better patient-based measures for assessing treatment effects on facial and truncal acne; and exploring patient characteristics that may modify treatment effects (efficacy and tolerability).

Background: We investigated the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of five antimicrobial regimens for mild to moderate facial acne and whether propionibacterial antibiotic resistance affects treatment response., Methods: In this randomised, observer-masked trial, 649 community participants were allocated one of five antibacterial regimens. Primary outcomes were patients' self-assessed improvement and reduction in inflamed lesions at 18 weeks. Analyses were by intention to treat., Findings: Moderate or greater improvement at 18 weeks was reported in 72 (55%) of 131 participants assigned oral oxytetracycline plus topical placebo, 70 (54%) of 130 assigned oral minocycline plus topical placebo, 78 (60%) of 130 assigned topical benzoyl peroxide plus oral placebo, 84 (66%) of 127 assigned topical erythromycin and benzoyl peroxide in a combined formulation plus oral placebo, and 82 (63%) of 131 assigned topical erythromycin and benzoyl peroxide separately plus oral placebo. Most improvement occurred in the first 6 weeks. Treatment differences for the proportion of people with at least moderate improvement were: minocycline versus oxytetracycline -1.2% (unadjusted 95% CI -13.3 to 10.9); combined erythromycin and benzoyl peroxide versus oxytetracycline 11.1% (-0.7 to 22.9) and versus minocycline 12.3% (0.4 to 24.2); erythromycin and benzoyl peroxide separately versus combined formulation -3.5% (-15.2 to 8.2); benzoyl peroxide versus oxytetracycline 5.0% (-7.0 to 17.0), versus minocycline 6.2% (-5.8 to 18.2), and versus combined formulation -6.1% (-17.9 to 5.7). Benzoyl peroxide was the most cost-effective treatment. Efficacy of both tetracyclines was reduced by pre-existing tetracycline resistance., Interpretation: Topical benzoyl peroxide and benzoyl peroxide/erythromycin combinations are similar in efficacy to oral oxytetracycline and minocycline and are not affected by propionibacterial antibiotic resistance.

A comparison of efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of lymecycline and minocycline in the treatment of acne vulgaris has been addressed. This was a multicenter, randomized, investigator-masked, parallel group trial involving patients with moderate to moderately severe acne vulgaris, receiving either lymecycline or minocycline for 12 weeks. Efficacy and safety evaluation was performed at baseline and at weeks 4, 8, and 12 and completed by a pharmacoeconomic analysis including week 12 data. One hundred and thirty-six patients were enrolled. At week 12, the mean percent reductions in inflammatory count were 63 % and 65 %, and for total lesions counts 58 % and 56 % for lymecycline and for minocycline respectively. Median percent reduction in non-inflammatory count were 54 % and 47 % for lymecycline and for minocycline respectively. Eighty-seven per cent of all patients tolerated the treatments well. Treatment with lymecycline was found to be 4 times more cost-effective than with minocycline. Results showed that lymecycline has a comparable efficacy and safety profile to minocycline while being 4 times more cost-effective.

Background: Catheter-related bloodstream infections are costly and associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Trials suggest that central venous catheters impregnated with minocycline/rifampin, although more expensive, are clinically superior to chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine impregnated catheters. It remains unclear whether minocycline/rifampin catheters are cost-effective for all high-risk patients or only those requiring longer-term catheterization., Methods: We developed a series of decision models with patient-level clinical trial data to determine whether minocycline/rifampin catheters are cost-effective for patients requiring various durations of catheterization. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for patients catheterized for durations ranging from 1 to 25 days., Results: The data were too sparse to estimate cost-effectiveness for patients catheterized less than 8 days. The probability that minocycline/rifampin catheters were cost-effective compared with chlorhexidine/silver sulfadiazine catheters in patients catheterized for 8 days was 91%. The probability that the minocycline/rifampin catheters in patients catheterized 13 days or longer resulted in cost savings was more than 95%., Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that central venous catheters coated with minocycline/rifampin are cost-effective for patients catheterized for at least 1 week and lead to overall cost savings when patients are catheterized for 2 weeks or longer. Policies for the use of antimicrobial catheters in high-risk patients should reflect patients' expected duration of catheterization.

Background: Central venous catheters are a principal source of nosocomial bloodstream infections, which are difficult to control., Objective: To determine the efficacy of catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin in preventing catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections., Design: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial., Setting: Five university-based medical centers., Patients: 281 hospitalized patients who required 298 triple-lumen, polyurethane venous catheters., Intervention: 147 catheters were pretreated with tridodecylmethyl-ammonium chloride and coated with minocycline and rifampin. Untreated, uncoated catheters (n = 151) were used as controls., Measurements: Quantitative catheter cultures, blood cultures, and molecular typing of organisms to determine catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections., Results: The group with coated catheters and the group with uncoated catheters were similar with respect to age, sex, underlying diseases, degree of immunosuppression, therapeutic interventions, and risk factors for catheter infections. Colonization occurred in 36 (26%) uncoated catheters and 11 (8%) coated catheters (P < 0.001). Catheter-related bloodstream infection developed in 7 patients (5%) with uncoated catheters and no patients with coated catheters (P < 0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that coating catheters with minocycline and rifampin was an independent protective factor against catheter-related colonization (P < 0.05). No adverse effects related to the coated catheters or antimicrobial resistance were seen. An estimate showed that the use of coated catheters could save costs., Conclusions: Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin can significantly reduce the risk for catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections. The use of these catheters may save costs.