A cost analysis of a broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy in the empirical treatment of health care-associated infections in cirrhotic patients.

backgroundEarly diagnosis and appropriate treatment of infections in cirrhosis are crucial. As new guidelines in this context, particularly for health care-associated (HCA) infections, would be needed, we performed a trial documenting whether an empirical broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy is more effective than the standard one for these infections. Because of the higher daily cost of broad-spectrum than standard antibiotics, we performed a cost analysis to compare: 1) total drug costs, 2) profitability of hospital admissions.

methodsThis retrospective observational analysis was performed on patients enrolled in the trial NCT01820026, in which consecutive cirrhotic patients with HCA infections were randomly assigned to a standard vs a broad-spectrum treatment. Antibiotic daily doses, days of treatment, length of hospital stay, and DRG (diagnosis-related group) were recorded from the clinical trial medical records. The profitability of hospitalizations was calculated considering DRG tariffs divided by length of hospital stay.

resultsWe considered 84 patients (42 for each group). The standard therapy allowed to obtain a first-line treatment cost lower than in the broad-spectrum therapy. Anyway, the latter, being related to a lower failure rate (19% vs 57.1%), resulted in cost saving in terms of cumulative antibiotic costs (first- and second-line treatments). The mean cost saving per patient for the broad-spectrum arm was €44.18 (-37.6%), with a total cost saving of about €2,000. Compared to standard group, we observed a statistically significant reduction in hospital stay from 17.8 to 11.8 days (

conclusionOur study supports the idea that the use of a broad-spectrum empirical treatment for HCA infections in cirrhosis would be cost-saving and that hospitals need to be aware of the clinical and economic consequences of a wrong antibiotic treatment in this setting.