J F Piccirillo1, D E Mager, M E Frisse, R H Brophy, A Goggin. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8115, 660 S Euclid Ave, St Louis, MO 63110, USA. piccirij@msnotes.wustl.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT: Studies suggest little benefit in relief of acute sinusitis symptoms from the use of newer and more expensive (second-line) antibiotics instead of older and less expensive (first-line) antibiotics. However, researchers have failed to include development of complications and cost of care in their analyses. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and cost of first-line with second-line antibiotics for the treatment of acute uncomplicated sinusitis in adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective cohort study using a pharmaceutical database containing demographic, clinical (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision), treatment, and charge information for 29 102 adults with a diagnosis of acute sinusitis receiving initial antibiotic treatment between July 1, 1996, and June 30, 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Absence of additional claim for an antibiotic in the 28 days after the initial antibiotic, presence of a claim for a second antibiotic, serious complications of sinusitis, and direct charges and use for the acute sinusitis treatment. RESULTS: There were 17 different antibiotics prescribed in this study. The majority (59.5%) of patients received 1 of the first-line antibiotics. The overall success rate was 90.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.0%-90.8%). The success rate for the 17 329 patients who received a first-line antibiotic was 90.1% and for the 11 773 patients who received a second-line antibiotic was 90.8%, a difference of 0.7% (95% CI, 0.01%-1.40%; P<.05). There were 2 cases of periorbital cellulitis, one in each treatment group. The average total direct charge for patients receiving a first-line antibiotic was $68.98 and a second-line antibiotic was $135.17, a difference of $66.19 (95% CI, $64.95-$67.43; P<.001). This difference was due entirely to the difference in charge of antibiotics and not other charges, such as professional fees, laboratory tests, or emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with a first-line antibiotic for acute uncomplicated sinusitis did not have clinically significant differences in outcomes vs those treated with a second-line antibiotic. However, cost of care was significantly higher for patients treated with a second-line antibiotic.
CONTEXT: Studies suggest little benefit in relief of acute sinusitis symptoms from the use of newer and more expensive (second-line) antibiotics instead of older and less expensive (first-line) antibiotics. However, researchers have failed to include development of complications and cost of care in their analyses. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and cost of first-line with second-line antibiotics for the treatment of acute uncomplicated sinusitis in adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective cohort study using a pharmaceutical database containing demographic, clinical (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision), treatment, and charge information for 29 102 adults with a diagnosis of acute sinusitis receiving initial antibiotic treatment between July 1, 1996, and June 30, 1997. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Absence of additional claim for an antibiotic in the 28 days after the initial antibiotic, presence of a claim for a second antibiotic, serious complications of sinusitis, and direct charges and use for the acute sinusitis treatment. RESULTS: There were 17 different antibiotics prescribed in this study. The majority (59.5%) of patients received 1 of the first-line antibiotics. The overall success rate was 90.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.0%-90.8%). The success rate for the 17 329 patients who received a first-line antibiotic was 90.1% and for the 11 773 patients who received a second-line antibiotic was 90.8%, a difference of 0.7% (95% CI, 0.01%-1.40%; P<.05). There were 2 cases of periorbital cellulitis, one in each treatment group. The average total direct charge for patients receiving a first-line antibiotic was $68.98 and a second-line antibiotic was $135.17, a difference of $66.19 (95% CI, $64.95-$67.43; P<.001). This difference was due entirely to the difference in charge of antibiotics and not other charges, such as professional fees, laboratory tests, or emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS:Patients treated with a first-line antibiotic for acute uncomplicated sinusitis did not have clinically significant differences in outcomes vs those treated with a second-line antibiotic. However, cost of care was significantly higher for patients treated with a second-line antibiotic.
Authors: B A Stuck; C Bachert; P Federspil; W Hosemann; L Klimek; R Mösges; O Pfaar; C Rudack; H Sitter; M Wagenmann; R Weber; K Hörmann Journal: HNO Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: Drosos E Karageorgopoulos; Konstantina P Giannopoulou; Alexandros P Grammatikos; George Dimopoulos; Matthew E Falagas Journal: CMAJ Date: 2008-03-25 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: B A Stuck; C Bachert; P Federspil; W Hosemann; L Klimek; R Mösges; O Pfaar; C Rudack; H Sitter; M Wagenmann; K Hörmann Journal: HNO Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: Laura M King; Guillermo V Sanchez; Monina Bartoces; Lauri A Hicks; Katherine E Fleming-Dutra Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Danielle L Palms; Lauri A Hicks; Monina Bartoces; Adam L Hersh; Rachel Zetts; David Y Hyun; Katherine E Fleming-Dutra Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Adam L Hersh; Katherine E Fleming-Dutra; Daniel J Shapiro; David Y Hyun; Lauri A Hicks Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Louise Elaine Vaz; Kenneth P Kleinman; Marsha A Raebel; James D Nordin; Matthew D Lakoma; M Maya Dutta-Linn; Jonathan A Finkelstein Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-02-02 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Ateev Mehrotra; Suzanne Paone; G Daniel Martich; Steven M Albert; Grant J Shevchik Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2013-05-19 Impact factor: 3.536