社区获得性肺炎患者的抗生素治疗模式、成本和资源利用:一项美国队列研究

C. Llop, E. Tuttle, G. Tillotson, K. LaPlante, T. File
{"title":"社区获得性肺炎患者的抗生素治疗模式、成本和资源利用:一项美国队列研究","authors":"C. Llop, E. Tuttle, G. Tillotson, K. LaPlante, T. File","doi":"10.1080/21548331.2017.1279012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objectives: The current treatment options for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) often present a trade-off between the potential for treatment failure and safety concerns. We set out to investigate real-world outcomes associated with the use of currently available antimicrobial treatment options for CAP in both the outpatient and inpatient (non-intensive care unit [ICU]) settings. Methods: This claims-based retrospective study included adult patients diagnosed with CAP and treated with antibiotic therapies, including any oral fluoroquinolone, macrolide, or beta-lactam monotherapy in the outpatient setting, and intravenous (IV) levofloxacin or IV azithromycin/ceftriaxone in the inpatient setting. Generalized linear model (GLM) regression was used to determine total charges for inpatient stay, the length of stay, and days of inpatient therapy. For outpatients, rates of adverse events (AEs), treatment failure, and hospitalization were compared by type of initial antibiotic therapy using logistic regression multivariate models that controlled for baseline characteristics. Results: A total of 441,820 outpatients and 33,287 inpatients treated for CAP between 2007 and 2012 were included in this analysis. In the outpatient setting, fluoroquinolone therapy led to a higher rate of documented AEs (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20–1.25; p < 0.0001) but a lower rate of retreatment (adjusted OR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.87–0.94; p < 0.0001) compared with macrolides. Both AEs and retreatment in these patients were associated with increased costs. For patients treated with the IV macrolide/beta-lactam combination compared with IV fluoroquinolone in the inpatient setting, a significantly longer length of stay in hospital (4.71 vs. 4.38 days; p < 0.0001) and greater overall costs ($3,535 more per stay; p < 0.0001) were observed. Conclusion: In both the inpatient and outpatient settings, the development of additional efficacious treatment options that have a reduced AE burden for patients with CAP may be warranted.","PeriodicalId":75913,"journal":{"name":"Hospital practice","volume":"45 1","pages":"1 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21548331.2017.1279012","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antibiotic treatment patterns, costs, and resource utilization among patients with community acquired pneumonia: a US cohort study\",\"authors\":\"C. Llop, E. Tuttle, G. Tillotson, K. LaPlante, T. File\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21548331.2017.1279012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Objectives: The current treatment options for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) often present a trade-off between the potential for treatment failure and safety concerns. We set out to investigate real-world outcomes associated with the use of currently available antimicrobial treatment options for CAP in both the outpatient and inpatient (non-intensive care unit [ICU]) settings. Methods: This claims-based retrospective study included adult patients diagnosed with CAP and treated with antibiotic therapies, including any oral fluoroquinolone, macrolide, or beta-lactam monotherapy in the outpatient setting, and intravenous (IV) levofloxacin or IV azithromycin/ceftriaxone in the inpatient setting. Generalized linear model (GLM) regression was used to determine total charges for inpatient stay, the length of stay, and days of inpatient therapy. For outpatients, rates of adverse events (AEs), treatment failure, and hospitalization were compared by type of initial antibiotic therapy using logistic regression multivariate models that controlled for baseline characteristics. Results: A total of 441,820 outpatients and 33,287 inpatients treated for CAP between 2007 and 2012 were included in this analysis. In the outpatient setting, fluoroquinolone therapy led to a higher rate of documented AEs (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20–1.25; p < 0.0001) but a lower rate of retreatment (adjusted OR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.87–0.94; p < 0.0001) compared with macrolides. Both AEs and retreatment in these patients were associated with increased costs. For patients treated with the IV macrolide/beta-lactam combination compared with IV fluoroquinolone in the inpatient setting, a significantly longer length of stay in hospital (4.71 vs. 4.38 days; p < 0.0001) and greater overall costs ($3,535 more per stay; p < 0.0001) were observed. Conclusion: In both the inpatient and outpatient settings, the development of additional efficacious treatment options that have a reduced AE burden for patients with CAP may be warranted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":75913,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hospital practice\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21548331.2017.1279012\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hospital practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.2017.1279012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.2017.1279012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

摘要目的:目前社区获得性肺炎(CAP)患者的治疗方案往往在治疗失败的可能性和安全性问题之间进行权衡。我们着手调查在门诊和住院(非重症监护室[ICU])环境中使用目前可用的CAP抗菌治疗方案的实际结果。方法:这项基于索赔的回顾性研究包括诊断为CAP并接受抗生素治疗的成年患者,包括门诊环境中的任何口服氟喹诺酮、大环内酯或β-内酰胺单药治疗,以及住院环境中的静脉注射左氧氟沙星或静脉注射阿奇霉素/头孢曲松。广义线性模型(GLM)回归用于确定住院总费用、住院时间和住院治疗天数。对于门诊患者,使用控制基线特征的逻辑回归多变量模型,按初始抗生素治疗类型比较不良事件(AE)、治疗失败和住院率。结果:2007年至2012年间,共有441820名门诊患者和33287名住院患者接受CAP治疗。在门诊环境中,与大环内酯类药物相比,氟喹诺酮类药物治疗导致记录不良事件的发生率更高(调整后的比值比[OR]:1.23;95%置信区间[CI]:1.20-1.25;p<0.0001),但再治疗率更低(调整后比值比:0.9;95%可信区间:0.87-0.94;p<0.001)。这些患者的AE和再治疗都与成本增加有关。在住院环境中,与静脉注射氟喹诺酮相比,静脉注射大环内酯/β-内酰胺联合治疗的患者的住院时间明显更长(4.71天vs.4.38天;p<0.0001),总体费用更高(每次住院多3535美元;p<.0001)。结论:在住院和门诊环境中,可能有必要开发额外的有效治疗方案,以减轻CAP患者的AE负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Antibiotic treatment patterns, costs, and resource utilization among patients with community acquired pneumonia: a US cohort study
ABSTRACT Objectives: The current treatment options for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) often present a trade-off between the potential for treatment failure and safety concerns. We set out to investigate real-world outcomes associated with the use of currently available antimicrobial treatment options for CAP in both the outpatient and inpatient (non-intensive care unit [ICU]) settings. Methods: This claims-based retrospective study included adult patients diagnosed with CAP and treated with antibiotic therapies, including any oral fluoroquinolone, macrolide, or beta-lactam monotherapy in the outpatient setting, and intravenous (IV) levofloxacin or IV azithromycin/ceftriaxone in the inpatient setting. Generalized linear model (GLM) regression was used to determine total charges for inpatient stay, the length of stay, and days of inpatient therapy. For outpatients, rates of adverse events (AEs), treatment failure, and hospitalization were compared by type of initial antibiotic therapy using logistic regression multivariate models that controlled for baseline characteristics. Results: A total of 441,820 outpatients and 33,287 inpatients treated for CAP between 2007 and 2012 were included in this analysis. In the outpatient setting, fluoroquinolone therapy led to a higher rate of documented AEs (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20–1.25; p < 0.0001) but a lower rate of retreatment (adjusted OR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.87–0.94; p < 0.0001) compared with macrolides. Both AEs and retreatment in these patients were associated with increased costs. For patients treated with the IV macrolide/beta-lactam combination compared with IV fluoroquinolone in the inpatient setting, a significantly longer length of stay in hospital (4.71 vs. 4.38 days; p < 0.0001) and greater overall costs ($3,535 more per stay; p < 0.0001) were observed. Conclusion: In both the inpatient and outpatient settings, the development of additional efficacious treatment options that have a reduced AE burden for patients with CAP may be warranted.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信