Clinical response and hospital costs associated with the empirical use of vancomycin and linezolid for hospital-acquired pneumonia in a Chinese tertiary care hospital: a retrospective cohort study
Authors Song Y, Yang Y, Chen W, Liu W, Wang K, Li X, Wang K, Papadimitropoulos M, Montgomery W
Received 10 April 2014
Accepted for publication 16 June 2014
Published 17 October 2014 Volume 2014:6 Pages 451—461
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Yuanlin Song,1,* Yicheng Yang,2,* Wendong Chen,3,4 Wei Liu,2 Kai Wang,2 Xuehai Li,5 Ke Wang,2 Manny Papadimitropoulos,3,6 William Montgomery7
1Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 2Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Shanghai Branch, Shanghai, People's Republic of China; 3Division of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, 4Normin Health, Toronto, ON, Canada; 5VitalStrategic Research Institute, Shanghai, People's Republic of China; 6Global Health Outcomes Research, Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 7Eli Lilly Australia Pty Ltd, West Ryde, NSW, Australia
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Aims: To evaluate clinical outcomes and allocation of hospital costs associated with empirical use of vancomycin or linezolid for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) in the People's Republic of China.
Methods: Hospital episodes including HAP treated by vancomycin or linezolid between 2008 and 2012 in a Chinese tertiary care hospital were retrospectively identified from hospital administrative databases. Propensity score methods created best-matched pairs for the antibiotics. The matched pairs were used for adjusted comparisons on clinical response and allocation of hospital costs. Multiple regression analyses adjusting residual imbalance after matching were performed to confirm adjusted comparisons.
Results: Sixty matched pairs were created. Adjusted comparisons between vancomycin and linezolid showed similar clinical response rates (clinical cure: 30.0% versus 31.7%, respectively; P=0.847; treatment failure: 55.0% versus 45.0%, respectively; P=0.289) but a significantly lower in-hospital mortality rate for vancomycin (3.3% versus 18.3%, respectively; P=0.013). After further adjusting for the imbalanced variables between matched treatment groups, the risks of treatment failure associated with the two antibiotics were comparable (odds ratio: 1.139; P=0.308) and there was a nonsignificant trend of lower risk of in-hospital mortality associated with vancomycin (odds ratio: 0.186; P=0.055). The total hospital costs associated with vancomycin had a nonsignificant trend of being lower, likely because of its significantly lower acquisition costs (median: RMB 2,880 versus RMB 8,194; P<0.001; 1 RMB =0.16 USD).
Conclusion: In tertiary care hospitals in the People's Republic of China, empirical treatment of patients with HAP with vancomycin had a comparable treatment failure rate but likely had a lower in-hospital mortality rate when compared with linezolid. Vancomycin also costs significantly less for drug acquisition than linezolid when treating HAP empirically.
Keywords: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, treatment failure, mortality, antibiotics
A Letter to Editor has been received and published for this article.
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]