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

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.

Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this prospective cohort trial was to perform a cost/time analysis for implant-supported single-unit reconstructions in the digital workflow compared to the conventional pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 20 patients were included for rehabilitation with 2 × 20 implant crowns in a crossover study design and treated consecutively each with customized titanium abutments plus CAD/CAM-zirconia-suprastructures (test: digital) and with standardized titanium abutments plus PFM-crowns (control conventional). Starting with prosthetic treatment, analysis was estimated for clinical and laboratory work steps including measure of costs in Swiss Francs (CHF), productivity rates and cost minimization for first-line therapy. Statistical calculations were performed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS Both protocols worked successfully for all test and control reconstructions. Direct treatment costs were significantly lower for the digital workflow 1815.35 CHF compared to the conventional pathway 2119.65 CHF [P = 0.0004]. For subprocess evaluation, total laboratory costs were calculated as 941.95 CHF for the test group and 1245.65 CHF for the control group, respectively [P = 0.003]. The clinical dental productivity rate amounted to 29.64 CHF/min (digital) and 24.37 CHF/min (conventional) [P = 0.002]. Overall, cost minimization analysis exhibited an 18% cost reduction within the digital process. CONCLUSION The digital workflow was more efficient than the established conventional pathway for implant-supported crowns in this investigation.