Dataset Information

Propensity-Matched Cost of Clostridioides difficile Infection Overdiagnosis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clostridioides difficile is the leading health care-associated pathogen, but clinicians lack a test that can reliably differentiate colonization from infection. Health care costs attributed to C. difficile are substantial, but the economic burden associated with C. difficile false positives is poorly understood.

Methods

A propensity score matching model for cost per hospitalization was developed to estimate the costs of both true infection and false positives. Predictors of C. difficile positivity used to estimate the propensity score were age, Charlson comorbidity index, white cell count, and creatinine. We used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cycle threshold to identify and compare 3 groups: (1) true infection, (2) C. difficile colonization, and (3) C. difficile negative.

Results

A positive test was associated with $3018 higher unadjusted hospital cost. Among the 3 comparisons made with propensity-matched negative controls (all positives [+$179; P = .934], true positives [-$1892; P = .100], and colonized positives), only colonization was associated with significantly increased (+$3418; P = .012) cost. Differences in lengths of stay (all positives 0 days, P = .126; true 0 days, P = .919; colonized 1 day, P = .019) appeared to underly cost differences.

Conclusions

In the first C. difficile cost analysis to utilize PCR cycle threshold to differentiate colonization, we found high propensity-matched hospital costs associated with colonized but not true positives. This unexpected finding may be due to misdiagnosis of non-C. difficile diarrhea or unadjusted factors associated with colonization.

SUBMITTER: Madden GR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7863872 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Propensity-Matched Cost of <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> Infection Overdiagnosis.

Madden Gregory R GR Smith David C DC Poulter Melinda D MD Sifri Costi D CD

Open forum infectious diseases 20201221 2

<h4>Background</h4><i>Clostridioides difficile</i> is the leading health care-associated pathogen, but clinicians lack a test that can reliably differentiate colonization from infection. Health care costs attributed to <i>C. difficile</i> are substantial, but the economic burden associated with <i>C. difficile</i> false positives is poorly understood.<h4>Methods</h4>A propensity score matching model for cost per hospitalization was developed to estimate the costs of both true infection and false ...[more]

PMID: 33575420

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTreatment of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has undergone significant change in recent years with the introduction of fidaxomicin and bezlotoxumab. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin and bezlotoxumab for initial CDI compared with standard therapy with oral vancomycin.MethodsA Markov model with eight health states was built based on transition probabilities, costs and health utilities derived from literature to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard fidaxomicin, bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin, and extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus standard oral vancomycin over a lifetime horizon from the US societal perspective.ResultsFor overall CDI treatment, oral vancomycin had a cost of $39 178 and was associated with a gain of 11.64 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin had a higher QALY gain of 11.65 at a lower cost of $37 613, and therefore was dominant over vancomycin. Standard fidaxomicin had a QALY gain of 11.94 versus vancomycin at an incremental cost of $495 per QALY. Bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin led to a QALY gain of 11.77 at an incremental cost of $17 746 per QALY. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150 000 per QALY, extended-pulsed fidaxomicin, bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin and standard fidaxomicin were more cost-effective compared with vancomycin alone, yielding incremental net monetary benefits of $3248, $17 011 and $44 308, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the probabilities of sustained cure from the initial episode were the most sensitive inputs, and results were overall not particularly sensitive to any drug costs.ConclusionsBased on a WTP threshold of $150 000, standard fidaxomicin was estimated to be the most cost-effective treatment. Standard-of-care vancomycin was dominated by extended-pulsed fidaxomicin for treating an episode of CDI and preventing further recurrence, and the addition of bezlotoxumab to vancomycin was dominated by standard fidaxomicin.

Project description:BackgroundNo studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of single and two-step different diagnostic test strategies for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), including direct and indirect costs.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of commonly available diagnostic tests for CDI including nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) alone, glutamate dehydrogenase followed by enzyme immunoassay for toxin (GDH/EIA), GDH then NAAT (GDH/NAAT), and NAAT then EIA (NAAT/EIA).DesignDecision tree model from the US societal perspective with inputs derived from the literature. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. To assess the impact of uncertainty in model inputs on the findings, we performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ParticipantsWe conducted the analysis to represent a population aged 65 years old with diarrhea who received a CDI diagnostic test.Main measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB).Key resultsNAAT alone was the most cost-effective approach overall; GDH/NAAT was the most cost-effective two-step option. NAAT alone led to the highest QALYs gained, at an incremental cost of $54,547 (vs. GDH/NAAT), $55,410 (vs. GDH/EIA), and $50,231 (vs. NAAT/EIA) per QALY gained. NAAT/EIA was not cost-effective compared to any other strategy. GDH/NAAT resulted in a higher QALY compared to GDH/EIA, at an incremental cost of $96,841 per QALY gained. Variability in the likelihood of comorbidities, CDI probability, and age at disease onset did not substantially change the results. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that results were most sensitive to likelihood of recurrence, followed by CDI mortality rate and probability of severe CDI. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored known uncertainties in the base case and confirmed the robustness of the results.ConclusionsNAAT alone and GDH/NAAT (among the two-step options) were the most cost-effective diagnostic test approaches for CDI.

Project description:ImportanceClostridioides difficile infection is the most common hospital-acquired infection in the United States, yet few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of infection control initiatives targeting C difficile.ObjectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness of 9 C difficile single intervention strategies and 8 multi-intervention bundles.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation was conducted in a simulated 200-bed tertiary, acute care, adult hospital. The study relied on clinical outcomes from a published agent-based simulation model of C difficile transmission. The model included 4 agent types (ie, patients, nurses, physicians, and visitors). Cost and utility estimates were derived from the literature.InterventionsDaily sporicidal cleaning, terminal sporicidal cleaning, health care worker hand hygiene, patient hand hygiene, visitor hand hygiene, health care worker contact precautions, visitor contact precautions, C difficile screening at admission, and reduced intrahospital patient transfers.Main outcomes and measuresCost-effectiveness was evaluated from the hospital perspective and defined by 2 measures: cost per hospital-onset C difficile infection averted and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).ResultsIn this agent-based model of a simulated 200-bed tertiary, acute care, adult hospital, 5 of 9 single intervention strategies were dominant, reducing cost, increasing QALYs, and averting hospital-onset C difficile infection compared with baseline standard hospital practices. They were daily cleaning (most cost-effective, saving $358 268 and 36.8 QALYs annually), health care worker hand hygiene, patient hand hygiene, terminal cleaning, and reducing intrahospital patient transfers. Screening at admission cost $1283/QALY, while health care worker contact precautions and visitor hand hygiene interventions cost $123 264/QALY and $5 730 987/QALY, respectively. Visitor contact precautions was dominated, with increased cost and decreased QALYs. Adding screening, health care worker hand hygiene, and patient hand hygiene sequentially to the daily cleaning intervention formed 2-pronged, 3-pronged, and 4-pronged multi-intervention bundles that cost an additional $29 616/QALY, $50 196/QALY, and $146 792/QALY, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that institutions should seek to streamline their infection control initiatives and prioritize a smaller number of highly cost-effective interventions. Daily sporicidal cleaning was among several cost-saving strategies that could be prioritized over minimally effective, costly strategies, such as visitor contact precautions.

Project description:ImportanceClostridium difficile is a major cause of health care-associated infection, but disagreement between diagnostic tests is an ongoing barrier to clinical decision making and public health reporting. Molecular tests are increasingly used to diagnose C difficile infection (CDI), but many molecular test-positive patients lack toxins that historically defined disease, making it unclear if they need treatment.ObjectiveTo determine the natural history and need for treatment of patients who are toxin immunoassay negative and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive (Tox-/PCR+) for CDI.Design, setting, and participantsProspective observational cohort study at a single academic medical center among 1416 hospitalized adults tested for C difficile toxins 72 hours or longer after admission between December 1, 2010, and October 20, 2012. The analysis was conducted in stages with revisions from April 27, 2013, to January 13, 2015.Main outcomes and measuresPatients undergoing C difficile testing were grouped by US Food and Drug Administration-approved toxin and PCR tests as Tox+/PCR+, Tox-/PCR+, or Tox-/PCR-. Toxin results were reported clinically. Polymerase chain reaction results were not reported. The main study outcomes were duration of diarrhea during up to 14 days of treatment, rate of CDI-related complications (ie, colectomy, megacolon, or intensive care unit care) and CDI-related death within 30 days.ResultsTwenty-one percent (293 of 1416) of hospitalized adults tested for C difficile were positive by PCR, but 44.7% (131 of 293) had toxins detected by the clinical toxin test. At baseline, Tox-/PCR+ patients had lower C difficile bacterial load and less antibiotic exposure, fecal inflammation, and diarrhea than Tox+/PCR+ patients (P < .001 for all). The median duration of diarrhea was shorter in Tox-/PCR+ patients (2 days; interquartile range, 1-4 days) than in Tox+/PCR+ patients (3 days; interquartile range, 1-6 days) (P = .003) and was similar to that in Tox-/PCR- patients (2 days; interquartile range, 1-3 days), despite minimal empirical treatment of Tox-/PCR+ patients. No CDI-related complications occurred in Tox-/PCR+ patients vs 10 complications in Tox+/PCR+ patients (0% vs 7.6%, P < .001). One Tox-/PCR+ patient had recurrent CDI as a contributing factor to death within 30 days vs 11 CDI-related deaths in Tox+/PCR+ patients (0.6% vs 8.4%, P = .001).Conclusions and relevanceAmong hospitalized adults with suspected CDI, virtually all CDI-related complications and deaths occurred in patients with positive toxin immunoassay test results. Patients with a positive molecular test result and a negative toxin immunoassay test result had outcomes that were comparable to patients without C difficile by either method. Exclusive reliance on molecular tests for CDI diagnosis without tests for toxins or host response is likely to result in overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and increased health care costs.