Evidence Hub

Treatment failure in pneumonia: impact of antibiotic treatment and cost analysis

Ott SR, Hauptmeier BM, Ernen C, Lepper PM, Nüesch E, Pletz MW, Hecht J, Welte T et al.

The European respiratory journal, 2012

1,236 participants · 31 citations

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate treatment failure (TF) in hospitalised community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) patients with regard to initial antibiotic treatment and economic impact. CAP patients were included in two open, prospective multicentre studies assessing the direct costs for in-patient treatment. Patients received treatment either with moxifloxacin (MFX) or a nonstandardised antibiotic therapy. Any change in antibiotic therapy after >72 h of treatment to a broadened antibiotic spectrum was considered as TF. Overall, 1,236 patients (mean ± SD age 69.6 ± 16.8 yrs, 691 (55.9%) male) were included. TF occurred in 197 (15.9%) subjects and led to longer hospital stay (15.4 ± 7.3 days versus 9.8 ± 4.2 days; p < 0.001) and increased median treatment costs (€2,206 versus €1,284; p<0.001). 596 (48.2%) patients received MFX and witnessed less TF (10.9% versus 20.6%; p < 0.001). After controlling for confounders in multivariate analysis, adjusted risk of TF was clearly reduced in MFX as compared with β-lactam monotherapy (adjusted OR for MFX 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-0.68) and was more comparable with a β-lactam plus macrolide combination (BLM) (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.38-1.21). In hospitalised CAP, TF is frequent and leads to prolonged hospital stay and increased treatment costs. Initial treatment with MFX or BLM is a possible strategy to prevent TF, and may thus reduce treatment costs.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,236 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free