A cost analysis of Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy (OPAT): an Asian perspective

Ceftriaxone plus gentamicin or ceftriaxone alone for streptococcal endocarditis in Japanese patients as alternative first-line therapies

“…Although the issue of resistance induction is controversial, ceftriaxone has the merit of allowing a simple once-daily dosing regimen to achieve therapeutic efficacy equivalent to that of penicillin G, as demonstrated in our 4 patients who responded to ceftriaxone monotherapy. In addition, characteristically, OPAT with ceftriaxone has therapeutic efficacy equivalent to that of hospital treatment, and is thus cost-effective [37]. Consistent with previous studies, our results demonstrate the possibility that more patients with streptococcal endocarditis would be treatable with ceftriaxone monotherapy based on determination of the penicillin G MIC for Streptococcus spp.…”

Hospital admission patterns in adult patients with skin and soft tissue infections: Identification of potentially avoidable hospital admissions through a retrospective database analysis

“…Outpatient treatment and early discharge are mechanisms that have been increasingly used in recent years for patients with various types of infections in an attempt to contain costs with similar rates of clinical success. Recent studies have demonstrated that outpatient treatment for SSTI is associated with substantial cost savings, high rates of treatment success and high levels of patient satisfaction [22][23][24]. However, the criteria to identify patients who are eligible for outpatient SSTI therapy are unclear [25], as reflected in the variation in admission patterns in our study and others.…”

The Community IntraVenous Antibiotic Study (CIVAS): a mixed-methods evaluation of patient preferences for and cost-effectiveness of different service models for delivering outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy

“…Five studies did not specify the OPAT model that was being used, 48,52,55,61,62 and three others reported combined results for multiple models. 29,49,63 Synthesis of the findings from these studies indicates that, regardless of the model used, there is little evidence of impact on either drug-related side effects or number of deaths in OPAT patients in comparison to patients receiving treatment in hospital 10,22,25,[41][42][43][56][57][58][59]64 (see Appendix 1, Tables 32 and 34). One study looking at outpatient attendance 22 did find a higher death rate (1 patient vs. 0 patients), but this was a small study and the overall rate of side effects was lower in OPAT patients (15% vs. 18%).…”