Clinical Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Moxifloxacin as Initial Treatment for Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Meta-Analysis and Economic Evaluation

Link to article at PubMed

Clin Ther. 2021 Apr 1:S0149-2918(21)00114-4. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2021.03.006. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Moxifloxacin and levofloxacin are currently recommended as empirical initial treatment options for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in China according to guidelines. Most studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in treating CAP as initial empirical treatment were single-centered trials assessing different clinical end points. In addition, there is limited research investigating moxifloxacin's clinical benefits in the context of health care resource utilization and reimbursement from the payer's perspective in China. Hence, this study was aimed at comparing the clinical efficacy of moxifloxacin and levofloxacin by conducting a meta-analysis and assessing their economic value from the China payer's perspective through a cost-utility analysis model.

METHODS: For the meta-analysis, 6 bibliographic databases were searched for relevant publications from January 2000 to August 2020, and studies were assessed for eligibility under predetermined criteria. Meta-analysis was performed by using a random effects model when analyses included >2 trials. For the economic evaluation, a decision-tree model was constructed to investigate the cost-utility of moxifloxacin versus levofloxacin as initial regimens in the treatment of CAP inpatients. Parameter values were derived from meta-analysis, published literature, and clinician survey. The outcome was reported in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were undertaken to assess the robustness of the model.

FINDINGS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated that the clinical response rate at the test-of-cure visit with initial treatment of moxifloxacin was significantly higher than that of levofloxacin (3441 patients; random effects model; I2 = 49%; odds ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 2.35-4.77; P < 0.001). In terms of the safety profile, total adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups (2770 patients; random effects model; I2 = 40%; odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.06; P = 0.11). Output of the cost-utility model showed that under the willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time China gross domestic product per capita, moxifloxacin is dominant over levofloxacin, being less costly and more efficacious (0.002 quality-adjusted life year gained, CNY 844 [US$131] saved in total cost, negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). Sensitivity analyses indicated the robustness of the model as moxifloxacin remained dominant when model parameter values fluctuated.

IMPLICATIONS: Moxifloxacin is more efficacious than levofloxacin as the initial empirical treatment for CAP. In addition, treatment of CAP with moxifloxacin instead of levofloxacin is expected to be cost-saving from the perspective of payers in China. However, for the cost-utility analysis, in the absence of a national representative database on costs for hospitalization in China, inputs in the cost-utility model could be underestimated or overestimated due to estimating errors applied to both treatment arms. (Clin Ther. 2021;43:XXX-XXX) © 2021 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

PMID:33814200 | DOI:10.1016/j.clinthera.2021.03.006

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.