Dataset Information

Intermittent self catheterisation with hydrophilic, gel reservoir, and non-coated catheters: a systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the most effective and cost effective type of catheter for patients performing intermittent self catheterisation in the community.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Results were incorporated into a probabilistic Markov model to compare lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs).

Data sources

We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane and Cinahl databases from 2002 to 18 April 2011 to identify studies comparing hydrophilic, gel reservoir, and non-coated intermittent catheters. Earlier guidelines were used to identify papers published before 2002. To capture studies comparing clean and sterile non-coated intermittent self catheterisation, each database was searched from its date of inception to 18 April 2011.

Main outcome measures

Clinical outcomes included symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI), bacteraemia, mortality, patient preference or comfort, and number of catheters used. The economic model included downstream complications of UTI and cost effectiveness was calculated as incremental cost per QALY gained.

Results

Eight studies were included in the systematic review. Most were conducted in patients with spinal cord injuries, and most of the included patients were men. People using gel reservoir and hydrophilic catheters were significantly less likely to report one or more UTIs compared with sterile non-coated catheters (absolute effect for gel reservoir = 149 fewer per 1000 (95% confidence interval -7 to 198), P=0.04; absolute effect for hydrophilic = 153 fewer per 1000 (-8 to 268), P=0.04). However, there was no difference between hydrophilic and sterile non-coated catheters when outcomes were measured as mean monthly UTIs (mean difference = 0.01 (-0.11 to 0.09), P=0.84) or total UTIs at 1 year (mean difference = 0.18 (-0.50 to 0.86), P=0.60). There was little difference in the incidence of one or more UTIs for people using clean versus sterile non-coated catheters (absolute effect = 12 fewer per 1000 (-134 to 146), P=0.86). Although the most effective, gel reservoir catheters cost >£54,350 per QALY gained and are therefore not cost effective compared with clean non-coated self catheterisation.

Conclusion

The type of catheter used for intermittent self catheterisation seems to make little difference to the risk of symptomatic UTI. Given large differences in resource use, clean non-coated catheters are most cost effective. However, because of limitations and gaps in the evidence base and the designation of non-coated catheters as single use devices, we recommend a precautionary principle should be adopted and that patients should be offered a choice between hydrophilic and gel reservoir catheters.

SUBMITTER: Bermingham SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3541473 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSome types of antimicrobial-coated central venous catheters (A-CVC) have been shown to be cost effective in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI). However, not all types have been evaluated, and there are concerns over the quality and usefulness of these earlier studies. There is uncertainty amongst clinicians over which, if any, A-CVCs to use. We re-evaluated the cost effectiveness of all commercially available A-CVCs for prevention of CR-BSI in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients.MethodsWe used a Markov decision model to compare the cost effectiveness of A-CVCs relative to uncoated catheters. Four catheter types were evaluated: minocycline and rifampicin (MR)-coated catheters, silver, platinum and carbon (SPC)-impregnated catheters, and two chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine-coated catheters; one coated on the external surface (CH/SSD (ext)) and the other coated on both surfaces (CH/SSD (int/ext)). The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained and the expected net monetary benefits were estimated for each. Uncertainty arising from data estimates, data quality and heterogeneity was explored in sensitivity analyses.ResultsThe baseline analysis, with no consideration of uncertainty, indicated all four types of A-CVC were cost-saving relative to uncoated catheters. MR-coated catheters prevented 15 infections per 1,000 catheters and generated the greatest health benefits, 1.6 quality-adjusted life years, and cost savings (AUD $130,289). After considering uncertainty in the current evidence, the MR-coated catheters returned the highest incremental monetary net benefits of AUD $948 per catheter; however there was a 62% probability of error in this conclusion. Although the MR-coated catheters had the highest monetary net benefits across multiple scenarios, the decision was always associated with high uncertainty.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that the cost effectiveness of using A-CVCs within the ICU is highly uncertain. Policies to prevent CR-BSI amongst ICU patients should consider the cost effectiveness of competing interventions in the light of this uncertainty. Decision makers would do well to consider the current gaps in knowledge and the complexity of producing good quality evidence in this area.

Project description:Malaria in pregnancy is a public health problem for endemic countries. Economic evaluations of malaria preventive strategies in pregnancy are needed to guide health policies.This analysis was carried out in the context of a trial of malaria intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP), where both intervention groups received an insecticide treated net through the antenatal clinic (ANC) in Mozambique. The cost-effectiveness of IPTp-SP on maternal clinical malaria and neonatal survival was estimated. Correlation and threshold analyses were undertaken to assess the main factors affecting the economic outcomes and the cut-off values beyond which the intervention is no longer cost-effective. In 2007 US$, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for maternal malaria was 41.46 US$ (95% CI 20.5, 96.7) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted. The ICER per DALY averted due to the reduction in neonatal mortality was 1.08 US$ (95% CI 0.43, 3.48). The ICER including both the effect on the mother and on the newborn was 1.02 US$ (95% CI 0.42, 3.21) per DALY averted. Efficacy was the main factor affecting the economic evaluation of IPTp-SP. The intervention remained cost-effective with an increase in drug cost per dose up to 11 times in the case of maternal malaria and 183 times in the case of neonatal mortality.IPTp-SP was highly cost-effective for both prevention of maternal malaria and reduction of neonatal mortality in Mozambique. These findings are likely to hold for other settings where IPTp-SP is implemented through ANC visits. The intervention remained cost-effective even with a significant increase in drug and other intervention costs. Improvements in the protective efficacy of the intervention would increase its cost-effectiveness. Provision of IPTp with a more effective, although more expensive drug than SP may still remain a cost-effective public health measure to prevent malaria in pregnancy.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00209781.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with chronic urinary retention typically require intermittent catheterization. This review evaluates the effectiveness, safety, patient preference, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of different types of intermittent catheter (IC). Specifically, we compared prelubricated catheters (hydrophilic, gel reservoir) and noncoated catheters, as well as their single use versus reuse (multiple use).MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search and included randomized controlled trials, cohort, and case-control studies that examined any type of single-use versus multiple-use IC, hydrophilic single-use versus noncoated single-use, or gel reservoir single-use versus noncoated single-use. The outcomes of interest were symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI), hematuria, other serious adverse events, and patient satisfaction. The quality of the body of evidence was examined according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also completed an economic evaluation, using the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, to determine the cost-effectiveness of various intermittent catheters used in Ontario. We determined the budget impact of fully and partially funding various intermittent catheters for outpatients with chronic urinary retention. To understand patient experiences with intermittent catheterization, we interviewed 34 adults and parents of children affected by chronic urinary retention.ResultsWe found 14 randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. When comparing any type of single-use or multiple-use IC, we found no difference in UTI (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.70-1.39), hematuria, or serious adverse events, and inconclusive evidence on patient satisfaction.Our meta-analysis of studies on people living in the community showed that hydrophilic ICs may result in fewer UTIs than single-use noncoated ICs, but given the nature of the studies, we were uncertain about this conclusion.The nature of the available evidence also did not allow us to make definitive conclusions regarding whether one type of catheter was likely to result in less hematuria, fewer serious adverse events, or greater patient satisfaction.Our economic evaluation found that owing to small differences in quality-adjusted life-years and moderate to large incremental cost differences, the lowest-cost ICs-noncoated multiple-use (using one catheter per week or one catheter per day)-have the highest probability of being cost-effective. In a subpopulation of those clinically advised not to reuse ICs, single-use noncoated ICs have the highest probability of being cost-effective. As current funding is limited in the outpatient setting, publicly funding noncoated multiple-use catheters (one per day) would result in a total additional cost of $93 million over the first 5 years. People who use ICs reported that the high ongoing cost of purchasing catheters was a financial burden. Almost all said they would prefer not to reuse catheters sold as "single use" but could not afford to do so.ConclusionsGiven the overall low quality of evidence in available studies, we are uncertain whether any specific type of IC (coated or noncoated, single- or multiple-use) significantly reduces symptomatic UTI, hematuria, or other serious adverse clinical events, or whether a specific type improves patient satisfaction. Therefore, the lowest-cost IC is likely the most cost-effective.

Project description:BackgroundAwareness of the potential impact of malaria among school-age children has stimulated investigation into malaria interventions that can be delivered through schools. However, little evidence is available on the costs and cost-effectiveness of intervention options. This paper evaluates the costs and cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) as delivered by teachers in schools in western Kenya.MethodsInformation on actual drug and non-drug associated costs were collected from expenditure and salary records, government budgets and interviews with key district and national officials. Effectiveness data were derived from a cluster-randomised-controlled trial of IPT where a single dose of sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine and three daily doses of amodiaquine were provided three times in year (once termly). Both financial and economic costs were estimated from a provider perspective, and effectiveness was estimated in terms of anaemia cases averted. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the impact of key assumptions on estimated cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe delivery of IPT by teachers was estimated to cost US$ 1.88 per child treated per year, with drug and teacher training costs constituting the largest cost components. Set-up costs accounted for 13.2% of overall costs (equivalent to US$ 0.25 per child) whilst recurrent costs accounted for 86.8% (US$ 1.63 per child per year). The estimated cost per anaemia case averted was US$ 29.84 and the cost per case of Plasmodium falciparum parasitaemia averted was US$ 5.36, respectively. The cost per case of anaemia averted ranged between US$ 24.60 and 40.32 when the prices of antimalarial drugs and delivery costs were varied. Cost-effectiveness was most influenced by effectiveness of IPT and the background prevalence of anaemia. In settings where 30% and 50% of schoolchildren were anaemic, cost-effectiveness ratios were US$ 12.53 and 7.52, respectively.ConclusionThis study provides the first evidence that IPT administered by teachers is a cost-effective school-based malaria intervention and merits investigation in other settings.

Project description:BackgroundUrinary catheters are useful among hospital patients for allowing urinary flows and preparing patients for surgery. However, urinary infections associated with catheters cause significant patient discomfort and burden hospital resources. A nurse led intervention aiming to reduce inpatient catheterisation rates was recently trialled among adult overnight patients in four New South Wales hospitals. It included: 'train-the trainer' workshops, site champions, compliance audits and promotional materials. This study is the 'in-trial' cost-effectiveness analysis, conducted from the perspective of the New South Wales Ministry of Health.MethodsThe primary outcome variable was catheterisation rates. Catheterisation and procedure/treatment data were collected in three point prevalence patient surveys: pre-intervention (n = 1630), 4-months (n = 1677), and 9-months post-intervention (n = 1551). Intervention costs were based on trial records while labour costs were gathered from wage awards. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were calculated for 4- and 9-months post-intervention and tested with non-parametric bootstrapping. Sensitivity scenarios recalculated results after adjusting costs and parameters.ResultsThe trial found reductions in catheterisations across the four hospitals between preintervention (12.0 % (10.4 - 13.5 %), n = 195) and the 4- (9.9 % (8.5 - 11.3 %), n = 166 ) and 9- months (10.2 % (8.7 - 11.7 %) n = 158) post-intervention points. The trend was statistically non-significant (p = 0.1). Only one diagnosed CAUTI case was observed across the surveys. However, statistically and clinically significant decreases in catheterisation rates occurred for medical and critical care wards, and among female patients and short-term catheterisations. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios at 4-months and 9-months post-intervention were $188 and $264. Bootstrapping found reductions in catheterisations at positive costs over at least 72 % of iterations. Sensitivity scenarios showed that cost effectiveness was most responsive to changes in catheterisation rates.ConclusionsAnalysis showed that the association between the intervention and changes in catheterisation rates was not statistically significant. However, the intervention resulted in statistically significant reductions for subgroups including among short-term catheterisations and female patients. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that reductions in catheterisations were most likely achieved at positive cost.Trial registrationRegistered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12617000090314). First hospital enrolment, 15/11/2016; last hospital enrolment, 8/12/2016.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the views of intermittent catheter (IC) users regarding the advantages and disadvantages of single-use or reuse of catheters.DesignQualitative study with semi-structured interviews. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.SettingParticipant's own homes in Hampshire and Dorset, UK.ParticipantsA convenience sample of 39 IC users, aged 23-86 years, using IC for at least 3 months.ResultsThe analysis revealed four main themes: concerns regarding risk of urinary tract infection (UTI); cleaning, preparation and storage; social responsibility; practicalities and location. The main concern was safety, with the fear that reuse could increase risk of UTI compared with single-use sterile catheters. If shown to be safe then around half of participants thought they might consider reusing catheters. The practicalities of cleaning methods (extra products, time and storage) were considered potentially burdensome for reuse; but for single-use, ease of use and instant usability were advantages. Always having a catheter without fear of 'running out' was considered an advantage of reuse. Some participants were concerned about environmental impact (waste) and cost of single-use catheters. The potential for reuse was usually dependent on location. The analysis showed that often the disadvantages of single-use could be off-set by the advantages of reuse and vice versa, for example, the need to take many single-use catheters on holiday could be addressed by reuse, while the burden of cleaning would be obviated by single-use.ConclusionsIf shown to be safe with a practical cleaning method, some participants would find reuse an acceptable option, alongside their current single-use method. The choice to use a mixture of single-use and reuse of catheters for different activities (at home, work or holiday) could optimise the perceived advantages and disadvantages of both. The safety and acceptability of such an approach would require testing in a clinical trial.