Evidence Hub

Treatment failure rates and health care utilization and costs among patients with community-acquired pneumonia treated with levofloxacin or macrolides in an outpatient setting: a retrospective claims database analysis

Xin Ye, Vanja Sikirica, Jeffrey R Schein, Richard William Grant, Victoria Zarotsky, Dilesh Doshi, Carmela Benson, Aylin Altan Riedel

Clinical Therapeutics, 2008

7,526 participants · 42 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics and fluoroquinolones are extensively used in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

OBJECTIVE: This analysis was conducted to compare treatment failure rates and health care utilization and cost outcomes among patients with CAP treated with levo-floxacin (500 or 750 mg) or macrolides (azithromycin, clarithromycin, or erythromycin) in an outpatient setting.

METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of claims data from a large US health plan. Patients were aged > or =18 years and had a primary diagnosis of CAP that was treated with oral levofloxacin or a macrolide in an outpatient setting (including physicians' offices, outpatient clinics, urgent care centers, and large ambulatory health centers). Patients were followed for 30 days after the index drug date to measure study outcomes. Multivariate regression analysis and a propensity score technique were used to compare rates of treatment failure and CAP-related health care utilization and costs. Two post hoc subgroup analyses were conducted in patients aged > or =50 and > or =65 years.

RESULTS: Of the 7526 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 2968 (39.4%) were treated with levofloxacin and 4558 (60.6%) with a macrolide. Unadjusted rates of treatment failure were 21.1% and 22.7% in the levofloxacin and macrolide cohorts, respectively. After adjustment for demographic characteristics, baseline comorbidities, and severity of illness, levofloxacin recipients were significantly…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, 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: 7,526 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