OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of sequential intravenous-to-oral ofloxacin versus intravenous-to-oral standard switch therapy for the treatment of patients with sepsis who are hospitalized with bacterial infections. DESIGN:Cost-effectiveness analysis from a provider perspective, including resources important to an integrated healthcare network, of a randomized, open-label, controlled, clinical trial. SETTING: Millard Fillmore Health System, Buffalo, NY. PATIENTS: Hospitalized adults requiring parenteral antibiotics for a complicated urinary tract infection, lower respiratory tract infection, or skin and soft tissue infection. INTERVENTIONS:Sequential intravenous-to-oral ofloxacin or standard intravenous-to-oral switch antibiotics. OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical outcomes and direct costs associated with hospitalization, primary physician services, specialist physician services, and outpatient care. RESULTS:Eighty-two of 89 patients randomized into the two treatment groups were evaluable. Standard switch therapy failed with 12 patients versus 10 patients receiving ofloxacin. Complete economic data were available for 74 patients. Sequential ofloxacin therapy resulted in a 1-day-shorter antibiotic-related hospitalization without evidence of recurrent infection during the posttherapy follow-up evaluations. An average cost savings of $399 per patient was achieved in the sequential ofloxacin group. Although this difference did not attain statistical significance (probably due to the large variance), it is an economically significant finding. The cost-effectiveness ratios were $5735 per successful outcome for the standard switch therapy group versus $5126 per successful outcome in the sequential ofloxacin group. CONCLUSIONS:Sequential ofloxacin was as effective and consistently less expensive than standard switch antibiotics in the initial evaluation and in the sensitivity analysis of room cost and drug acquisition cost. Standard switch therapy would have to be greater than 25% more effective than sequential ofloxacin therapy to change the economic decision.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of sequential intravenous-to-oral ofloxacin versus intravenous-to-oral standard switch therapy for the treatment of patients with sepsis who are hospitalized with bacterial infections. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a provider perspective, including resources important to an integrated healthcare network, of a randomized, open-label, controlled, clinical trial. SETTING: Millard Fillmore Health System, Buffalo, NY. PATIENTS: Hospitalized adults requiring parenteral antibiotics for a complicated urinary tract infection, lower respiratory tract infection, or skin and soft tissue infection. INTERVENTIONS: Sequential intravenous-to-oral ofloxacin or standard intravenous-to-oral switch antibiotics. OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical outcomes and direct costs associated with hospitalization, primary physician services, specialist physician services, and outpatient care. RESULTS: Eighty-two of 89 patients randomized into the two treatment groups were evaluable. Standard switch therapy failed with 12 patients versus 10 patients receiving ofloxacin. Complete economic data were available for 74 patients. Sequential ofloxacin therapy resulted in a 1-day-shorter antibiotic-related hospitalization without evidence of recurrent infection during the posttherapy follow-up evaluations. An average cost savings of $399 per patient was achieved in the sequential ofloxacin group. Although this difference did not attain statistical significance (probably due to the large variance), it is an economically significant finding. The cost-effectiveness ratios were $5735 per successful outcome for the standard switch therapy group versus $5126 per successful outcome in the sequential ofloxacin group. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential ofloxacin was as effective and consistently less expensive than standard switch antibiotics in the initial evaluation and in the sensitivity analysis of room cost and drug acquisition cost. Standard switch therapy would have to be greater than 25% more effective than sequential ofloxacin therapy to change the economic decision.