Cost-effectiveness of oral versus intravenous antibiotics (OVIVA) in patients with bone and joint infection: evidence from a non-inferiority trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McMeekin N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6944252 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. METHODS:We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points. RESULTS:Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of -1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, -5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P=0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS:Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927 .).
| S-EPMC6522347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Bone and joint infection in adults arises most commonly as a complication of joint replacement surgery, fracture fixation and diabetic foot infection. The associated morbidity can be devastating to patients and costs the National Health Service an estimated £20,000 to £40,000 per patient. Current standard of care in most UK centres includes a prolonged course (4-6 weeks) of intravenous antibiotics supported, if available, by an outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy service. Intravenous therapy carries with it substantial risks and inconvenience to patients, and the antibiotic-related costs are approximately ten times that of oral therapy. Despite this, there is no evidence to suggest that oral therapy results in inferior outcomes. We hypothesise that, by selecting oral agents with high bioavailability, good tissue penetration and activity against the known or likely pathogens, key outcomes in patients managed primarily with oral therapy are non-inferior to those in patients treated by intravenous therapy. METHODS:The OVIVA trial is a parallel group, randomised (1:1), un-blinded, non-inferiority trial conducted in thirty hospitals across the UK. Eligible participants are adults (>18 years) with a clinical syndrome consistent with a bone, joint or metalware-associated infection who have received ?7 days of intravenous antibiotic therapy from the date of definitive surgery (or the start of planned curative therapy in patients treated without surgical intervention). Participants are randomised to receive either oral or intravenous antibiotics, selected by a specialist infection physician, for the first 6 weeks of therapy. The primary outcome measure is definite treatment failure within one year of randomisation, as assessed by a blinded endpoint committee, according to pre-defined microbiological, histological and clinical criteria. Enrolling 1,050 subjects will provide 90 % power to demonstrate non-inferiority, defined as less than 7.5 % absolute increase in treatment failure rate in patients randomised to oral therapy as compared to intravenous therapy (one-sided alpha of 0.05). DISCUSSION:If our results demonstrate non-inferiority of orally administered antibiotic therapy, this trial is likely to facilitate a dramatically improved patient experience and alleviate a substantial financial burden on healthcare services. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN91566927 - 14/02/2013.
| S-EPMC4687165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient self-management of long-term oral anticoagulation therapy is an effective strategy in a number of clinical situations, but it is currently not a funded option in the Canadian health care system. We sought to compare the incremental cost and health benefits of self-management with those of physician management from the perspective of the Canadian health care payer over a 5-year period.MethodsWe developed a Bayesian Markov model comparing the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued to patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy through self-management or physician management for atrial fibrillation or for a mechanical heart valve. Five health states were defined: no events, minor hemorrhagic events, major hemorrhagic events, thrombotic events and death. Data from published literature were used for transition probabilities. Canadian 2003 costs were used, and utility estimates were obtained from various published sources.ResultsSelf-management resulted in 3.50 fewer thrombotic events, 0.78 fewer major hemorrhagic events and 0.12 fewer deaths per 100 patients than physician management. The average discounted incremental cost of self-management over physician management was found to be 989 dollars (95% confidence interval [CI] 310 dollars-1655 dollars) per patient and the incremental QALYs gained was 0.07 (95% CI 0.06-0.08). The cost-effectiveness of self-management was 14,129 dollars per QALY gained. There was a 95% chance that self-management would be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of 23,800 dollars per QALY. Results were robust in probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.InterpretationThis model suggests that self-management is a cost-effective strategy for those receiving long-term oral anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation or for a mechanical heart valve.
| S-EPMC1475919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A cost-minimization analysis was conducted for Klebsiella pneumoniae liver abscess (KLA) patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial which found oral ciprofloxacin to be non-inferior to intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone in terms of clinical outcomes. Healthcare service utilization and cost data were obtained from medical records and estimated from self-reported patient surveys in a non-inferiority trial of oral ciprofloxacin versus IV ceftriaxone administered to 152 hospitalized adults with KLA in Singapore between November 2013 and October 2017. Total costs were evaluated by category and payer, and compared between oral and IV antibiotic groups over the trial period of 12 weeks. Among the subset of 139 patients for whom cost data were collected, average total cost over 12 weeks was $16,378 (95% CI, $14,620-$18,136) for the oral ciprofloxacin group and $20,569 (95% CI, $18,296-$22,842) for the IV ceftriaxone group, largely driven by lower average outpatient costs, as the average number of outpatient visits was halved for the oral ciprofloxacin group. There were no other statistically significant differences, either in inpatient costs or in other informal healthcare costs. Oral ciprofloxacin is less costly than IV ceftriaxone in the treatment of Klebsiella liver abscess, largely driven by reduced outpatient service costs.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01723150 (7/11/2012).
| S-EPMC10275854 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness of an early switch to oral antibiotics with the standard 7 day course of intravenous antibiotics in severe community acquired pneumonia.DesignMulticentre randomised controlled trial.SettingFive teaching hospitals and 2 university medical centres in the Netherlands.Participants302 patients in non-intensive care wards with severe community acquired pneumonia. 265 patients fulfilled the study requirements.InterventionThree days of treatment with intravenous antibiotics followed, when clinically stable, by oral antibiotics or by 7 days of intravenous antibiotics.Main outcome measuresClinical cure and length of hospital stay.Results302 patients were randomised (mean age 69.5 (standard deviation 14.0), mean pneumonia severity score 112.7 (26.0)). 37 patients were excluded from analysis because of early dropout before day 3, leaving 265 patients for intention to treat analysis. Mortality at day 28 was 4% in the intervention group and 6% in the control group (mean difference 2%, 95% confidence interval -3% to 8%). Clinical cure was 83% in the intervention group and 85% in the control group (2%, -7% to 10%). Duration of intravenous treatment and length of hospital stay were reduced in the intervention group, with mean differences of 3.4 days (3.6 (1.5) v 7.0 (2.0) days; 2.8 to 3.9) and 1.9 days (9.6 (5.0) v 11.5 (4.9) days; 0.6 to 3.2), respectively.ConclusionsEarly switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics in patients with severe community acquired pneumonia is safe and decreases length of hospital stay by 2 days.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT00273676 [ClinicalTrials.gov].
| S-EPMC1693658 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBronchiectasis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterised by a recurrent cycle of respiratory bacterial infections associated with cough, sputum production and impaired quality of life. Antibiotics are the main therapeutic option for managing bronchiectasis exacerbations. Evidence suggests that inhaled antibiotics may be associated with more effective eradication of infective organisms and a lower risk of developing antibiotic resistance when compared with orally administered antibiotics. However, it is currently unclear whether antibiotics are more effective when administered orally or by inhalation.ObjectivesTo determine the comparative efficacy and safety of oral versus inhaled antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.Search methodsWe identified studies through searches of the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register (CAGR), which is maintained by the Information Specialist for the group. The Register contains trial reports identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO trials portal. We searched all databases in March 2018 and imposed no restrictions on language of publication.Selection criteriaWe planned to include studies which compared oral antibiotics with inhaled antibiotics. We would have considered short-term use (less than four weeks) for treating acute exacerbations separately from longer-term use as a prophylactic (4 weeks or more). We would have considered both intraclass and interclass comparisons. We planned to exclude studies if the participants received continuous or high-dose antibiotics immediately before the start of the trial, or if they have received a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis (CF), sarcoidosis, active allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis or active non-tuberculous Mycobacterial infection.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria to the searches and we planned for two authors to independently extract data, assess risk of bias and assess overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We also planned to obtain missing data from the authors where possible and to report results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Main resultsWe identified 313 unique records through database searches and a further 21 records from trial registers. We excluded 307 on the basis of title and abstract alone and a further 27 after examining full-text reports. No studies were identified for inclusion in the review.Authors' conclusionsThere is currently no evidence indicating whether orally administered antibiotics are more beneficial compared to inhaled antibiotics. The recent ERS bronchiectasis guidelines provide a practical approach to the use of long-term antibiotics. New research is needed comparing inhaled versus oral antibiotic therapies for bronchiectasis patients with a history of frequent exacerbations, to establish which approach is the most effective in terms of exacerbation prevention, quality of life, treatment burden, and antibiotic resistance.
| S-EPMC6494273 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic pulmonary infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa is one of the most important causes of mortality and morbidity in cystic fibrosis. If antibiotics are commenced promptly, infection can be eradicated. The aim of the trial was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin versus oral ciprofloxacin in the eradication of P aeruginosa. METHODS:We did a multicentre, parallel group, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 72 cystic fibrosis centres (70 in the UK and two in Italy). Eligible participants were older than 28 days with an isolate of P aeruginosa (either the first ever isolate or a new isolate after at least 1 year free of infection). Participants were excluded if the P aeruginosa was resistant to, or they had a contraindication to, one or more of the trial antibiotics; if they were already receiving P aeruginosa suppressive therapy; if they had received any P aeruginosa eradication therapy within the previous 9 months; or if they were pregnant or breastfeeding. We used web-based randomisation to assign patients to 14 days intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin or 12 weeks oral ciprofloxacin. Both were combined with 12 weeks inhaled colistimethate sodium. Randomisation lists were generated by a statistician, who had no involvement in the trial, using a computer-generated list. Randomisation was stratified by centre and because of the nature of the interventions, blinding was not possible. Our primary outcome was eradication of P aeruginosa at 3 months and remaining free of infection to 15 months. Primary analysis used intention to treat (powered for superiority). Safety analysis included patients who received at least one dose of study drug. TORPEDO-CF was registered on the ISRCTN register, ISRCTN02734162, and EudraCT, 2009-012575-10. FINDINGS:Between Oct 5, 2010, and Jan 27, 2017, 286 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 137 to intravenous antibiotics and 149 to oral antibiotics. 55 (44%) of 125 participants in the intravenous group and 68 (52%) of 130 participants in the oral group achieved the primary outcome. Participants randomly assigned to the intravenous group were less likely to achieve the primary outcome, although the difference between groups was not statistically significant (relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·65-1·09; p=0·18). 11 serious adverse events occurred in ten (8%) of 126 participants in the intravenous antibiotics group and 17 serious adverse events in 12 (8%) of 146 participants in the oral antibiotics group. INTERPRETATION:Compared with oral therapy, intravenous antibiotics did not achieve sustained eradication of P aeruginosa in a greater proportion of patients with cystic fibrosis and was more expensive. Although there were fewer hospitalisations in the intravenous group than the oral group during follow-up, this confers no advantage over oral treatment because intravenous eradication frequently requires hospitalisation. These results do not support the use of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate P aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. FUNDING:National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
| S-EPMC7606906 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Klebsiella pneumoniae liver abscess is the most common etiology of liver abscess in Singapore and much of Asia, and its incidence is increasing. Current management includes prolonged intravenous antibiotic therapy, but there is limited evidence to guide oral conversion. The implicated K1/K2 capsule strain of Klebsiella pneumoniae is almost universally susceptible to ciprofloxacin, an antibiotic with high oral bioavailability. Our primary aim is to compare the efficacy of early (< one week) step-down to oral antibiotics, to continuing four weeks of intravenous antibiotics, in patients with Klebsiella liver abscess.The study is designed as a multi-center randomized open-label active comparator-controlled non-inferiority trial, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. Eligible participants will be inpatients over the age of 21 with a CT or ultrasound scan suggestive of a liver abscess, and Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated from abscess fluid or blood. Randomization into intervention or active control arms will be performed with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants randomized to active control will receive IV ceftriaxone 2 grams daily to complete a total of four weeks of IV antibiotics. Participants randomized to intervention will be immediately converted to oral ciprofloxacin 750 mg twice daily. At Week four, all participants will undergo abdominal imaging and be assessed for clinical response (CRP < 20 mg/l, absence of fever, plus scan showing that the maximal diameter of the abscess has reduced). If criteria are met, antibiotics are stopped; if not, oral antibiotics are continued, with reassessment for clinical response fortnightly. If criteria for clinical response are met by Week 12, the primary endpoint of clinical cure is met. A cost analysis will be performed to assess the cost saving of early conversion to oral antibiotics, and a quality of life analysis will be performed to assess whether treatment with oral antibiotics is less burdensome than prolonged IV antibiotics.Our results would help inform local and international practice guidelines regarding the optimal antibiotic management of Klebsiella liver abscess. A finding of non-inferiority may translate to the wider adoption of a more cost-effective strategy that reduces hospital length of stay and improves patient-centered outcomes and satisfaction.Clinical trials gov NCT01723150.
| S-EPMC4228424 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of yearly intravenous zoledronic acid treatment versus weekly oral alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China. Methods:We used a Markov microsimulation model to compare the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid with alendronate in Chinese postmenopausal osteoporotic women with no fracture history at various ages of therapy initiation from health care payer perspective. Results:The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the zoledronic acid versus alendronate were $23,581/QALY at age 65 years, $17,367/QALY at age 70 years, $14,714/QALY at age 75 years, and $12,169/QALY at age 80 years, respectively. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the study demonstrated that the two most impactful parameters were the annual cost of zoledronic acid and the relative risk of hip fracture with zoledronic acid. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of zoledronic acid being cost-effective compared with alendronate were 70-100% at a willingness-to-pay of $29,340 per QALY. Conclusions:Among postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China, zoledronic acid therapy is cost-effective at all ages examined from health care payer perspective, compared with weekly oral alendronate. In addition, alendronate treatment is shown to be dominant for patients at ages 65 and 70 with full persistence. This study will help clinicians and policymakers make better decisions about the relative economic value of osteoporosis treatments in China.
| S-EPMC7203488 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSacroiliac joint (SIJ) disorders are common in patients with chronic lower back pain. Minimally invasive surgical options have been shown to be effective for the treatment of chronic SIJ dysfunction.ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive SIJ fusion.MethodsData from two prospective, multicenter, clinical trials were used to inform a Markov process cost-utility model to evaluate cumulative 5-year health quality and costs after minimally invasive SIJ fusion using triangular titanium implants or non-surgical treatment. The analysis was performed from a third-party perspective. The model specifically incorporated variation in resource utilization observed in the randomized trial. Multiple one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsSIJ fusion was associated with a gain of approximately 0.74 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of US$13,313 per QALY gained. In multiple one-way sensitivity analyses all scenarios resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) <$26,000/QALY. Probabilistic analyses showed a high degree of certainty that the maximum ICER for SIJ fusion was less than commonly selected thresholds for acceptability (mean ICER =$13,687, 95% confidence interval $5,162-$28,085). SIJ fusion provided potential cost savings per QALY gained compared to non-surgical treatment after a treatment horizon of greater than 13 years.ConclusionCompared to traditional non-surgical treatments, SIJ fusion is a cost-effective, and, in the long term, cost-saving strategy for the treatment of SIJ dysfunction due to degenerative sacroiliitis or SIJ disruption.
| S-EPMC4690648 | biostudies-literature