Dataset Information

Antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical management of miscarriage in low-income countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis of the AIMS trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is ongoing debate on the clinical benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis for reducing pelvic infection after miscarriage surgery. We aimed to study the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical management of miscarriage in low-income countries.

Methods

We did an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis using data from 3412 women recruited to the AIMS trial, a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical management of miscarriage in Malawi, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda. Economic evaluation was done from a health-care-provider perspective on the basis of the outcome of cost per pelvic infection avoided within 2 weeks of surgery. Pelvic infection was broadly defined by the presence of clinical features or the clinically identified need to administer antibiotics. We used non-parametric bootstrapping and multilevel random effects models to estimate incremental mean costs and outcomes. Decision uncertainty was shown via cost-effectiveness acceptability frontiers. The AIMS trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97143849.

Findings

Between June 2, 2014, and April 26, 2017, 3412 women were assigned to receive either antibiotic prophylaxis (1705 [50%] of 3412) or placebo (1707 [50%] of 3412) in the AIMS trial. 158 (5%) of 3412 women developed pelvic infection within 2 weeks of surgery, of whom 68 (43%) were in the antibiotic prophylaxis group and 90 (57%) in the placebo group. There is 97-98% probability that antibiotic prophylaxis is a cost-effective intervention at expected thresholds of willingness-to-pay per additional pelvic infection avoided. In terms of post-surgery antibiotics, the antibiotic prophylaxis group was US$0·27 (95% CI -0·49 to -0·05) less expensive per woman than the placebo group. A secondary analysis, a sensitivity analysis, and all subgroup analyses supported these findings. Antibiotic prophylaxis, if implemented routinely before miscarriage surgery, could translate to an annual total cost saving of up to $1·4 million across the four participating countries and up to $8·5 million across the two regions of sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia.

Interpretation

Antibiotic prophylaxis is more effective and less expensive than no antibiotic prophylaxis. Policy makers in various settings should be confident that antibiotic prophylaxis in miscarriage surgery is cost-effective.

Funding

UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and the UK Department for International Development.

SUBMITTER: Goranitis I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6695526 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSurgical-site infections (SSIs) increase the length of hospital admission and costs. SSI prevention guidelines include preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. This review assessed the reporting quality and cost-effectiveness of preoperative antibiotics used to prevent SSI.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Index of Economic Articles (EconLit), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect (including the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database) and Cochrane Central databases were searched systematically from 1970 to 2017 for articles that included costs, preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis and SSI. Included were RCTs and quasi-experimental studies conducted in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries with participants aged at least 18 years and published in English. Two reviewers assessed eligibility, with inter-rater reliability determined by Cohen's κ statistic. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation and Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and modified Drummond checklists were used to assess reporting and economic quality. Study outcomes and characteristics were extracted, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, with costs adjusted to euros (2016) (€1 = US $1·25; £1 sterling = €1·28).ResultsTwelve studies published between 1988 and 2014 were included from 646 records identified; nine were RCTs, two were nested within RCTs and one was a retrospective chart review. Study quality was highest in the nested studies. Cephalosporins (first, second and third generation) were the most frequent prophylactic interventions. Eleven studies demonstrated clinically effective interventions; ten were cost-effective (the intervention was dominant); in one the intervention was dominated by the control; and in one the intervention was more effective and more expensive than the control.ConclusionPreoperative antibiotic prophylaxis does reduce SSI, costs to hospitals and health providers, but the reporting of economic methods in RCTs is not standardized. Routinely nesting economic methods in RCTs would improve economic evaluations and ensure appropriate selection of prophylactic antibiotics.

Project description:BackgroundWorldwide, approximately one in six inpatient antibiotic prescriptions are for surgical-infection prophylaxis, including postoperative prophylaxis. The WHO recommends against prolonged postoperative antibiotics to prevent surgical-site infection. However, in many low- and middle-income countries, postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis is common due to perceptions that it protects against surgical-site infection and data informing recommendations against antibiotic administration are largely derived from high-income countries. The aim of this study was to describe postoperative antibiotic-prescribing patterns and related surgical-site infection rates in hospitals in low- and middle-income countries.MethodsPatients from 19 hospitals in Ethiopia, Madagascar, India, and Bolivia with wound class I and II operations were included. Data on antibiotic administration, indication, surgical-site infection, length of hospital stay, and adherence to perioperative infection-prevention standards were collected by trained personnel. The association between postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for greater than or equal to 24 h and surgical-site infection was analysed via modified robust Poisson regression, controlling for patient and procedural factors and degree of adherence to perioperative infection-prevention practices.ResultsOf 8714 patients, 92.9% received antibiotics for prophylaxis after surgery and 27.7% received antibiotics for greater than or equal to 24 h. Patients receiving postoperative prophylaxis for greater than or equal to 24 h did not have lower surgical-site infection rates (Relative risk 1.09 (95% c.i. 0.89 to 1.33); P = 0.399), but the length of hospital stay was 1.4 days longer (P < 0.001).ConclusionProlonged postoperative antibiotics did not reduce surgical-site infection, but pervasive use was associated with a longer length of hospital stay, in resource-limited healthcare systems. With the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, surgical initiatives to implement antimicrobial stewardship programmes in low- and middle-income countries are critical.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) provision is a priority intervention for high HIV prevalence settings and populations at substantial risk of HIV acquisition. This mathematical modelling analysis estimated the impact, cost and cost-effectiveness of scaling up oral PrEP in 13 countries. METHODS:We projected the impact and cost-effectiveness of oral PrEP between 2018 and 2030 using a combination of the Incidence Patterns Model and the Goals model. We created four PrEP rollout scenarios involving three priority populations-female sex workers (FSWs), serodiscordant couples (SDCs) and adolescent girls and young women (AGYW)-both with and without geographic prioritization. We applied the model to 13 countries (Eswatini, Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe). The base case assumed achievement of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 90-90-90 antiretroviral therapy targets, 90% male circumcision coverage by 2020 and 90% efficacy and adherence levels for oral PrEP. RESULTS:In the scenarios we examined, oral PrEP averted 3% to 8% of HIV infections across the 13 countries between 2018 and 2030. For all but three countries, more than 50% of the HIV infections averted by oral PrEP in the scenarios we examined could be obtained by rollout to FSWs and SDCs alone. For several countries, expanding oral PrEP to include medium-risk AGYW in all regions greatly increased the impact. The efficiency and impact benefits of geographic prioritization of rollout to AGYW varied across countries. Variations in cost-effectiveness across countries reflected differences in HIV incidence and expected variations in unit cost. For most countries, rolling out oral PrEP to FSWs, SDCs and geographically prioritized AGYW was not projected to have a substantial impact on the supply chain for antiretroviral drugs. CONCLUSIONS:These modelling results can inform prioritization, target-setting and other decisions related to oral PrEP scale-up within combination prevention programmes. We caution against extensive use given limitations in cost data and implementation approaches. This analysis highlights some of the immediate challenges facing countries-for example, trade-offs between overall impact and cost-effectiveness-and emphasizes the need to improve data availability and risk assessment tools to help countries make informed decisions.