Dataset Information

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) versus inpatient care in the UK: a health economic assessment for six key diagnoses.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare costs associated with different models of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) delivery with costs of inpatient (IP) care across key infection groups managed via OPAT in the UK.

Design

A cost-minimisation design was used due to evidence of similarities in patient and treatment outcomes between OPAT and IP care. A bottom-up approach was undertaken for the evaluation of OPAT associated costs. The British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy National Outcomes Registry System was used to determine key infection diagnoses, mean duration of treatment and most frequent antibiotics used.

Setting

Several OPAT delivery settings were considered and compared with IP care.

Interventions

OPAT models considered were OP clinic model, nurse home visits, self (or carer)-administration by a bolus intravenous, self-administration by a commercially prefilled elastomeric device, continuous intravenous infusion of piperacillin with tazobactam or flucloxacillin with elastomeric device as OP once daily and, specifically for bone and joint and diabetic foot infections, complex outpatient oral antibiotic therapies.

Results

Base case and a range of scenario results showed all evaluated OPAT service delivery models to be less costly than IP stay of equivalent duration. The extent of savings varied by OPAT healthcare delivery models. Estimated OPAT costs as a proportion of IP costs were estimated at 0.23-0.53 (skin and soft-tissue infections), 0.34-0.46 (complex urinary tract infections), 0.23-0.51 (orthopaedic infections), 0.24-0.42 (diabetic foot infections) 0.40-0.56 (exacerbations of bronchiectasis) and 0.25-0.42 (intra-abdominal infections). Partial or full complex oral antibiotic therapies in orthopaedic or diabetic foot infections costs were estimated to be 0.13-0.26 of IP costs. Main OPAT costs were associated with staff time and antimicrobial medications.

Conclusions

OPAT is a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources for the treatment of a range of infections in the UK in patients who can be safely managed in a non-IP setting.

SUBMITTER: Dimitrova M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8479950 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveOutpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) provides opportunities for improved cost savings, but in the UK, implementation is patchy and a variety of service models are in use. The slow uptake in the UK and Europe is due to a number of clinical, financial and logistical issues, including concern about patient safety. The measurement of patient experience data is commonly used to inform commissioning decisions, but these focus on functional aspects of services and fail to examine the relational aspects of care. This qualitative study examines patients' experiences of OPAT.DesignIn-depth, semistructured interviews.SettingPurposive sample of OPAT patients recruited from four acute National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in Northern England. These NHS Trusts between them represented both well-established and recently set-up services running nurse at home, hospital outpatient and/or self-administration models.ParticipantsWe undertook 28 semistructured interviews and one focus group (n=4).ResultsDespite good patient outcomes, experiences were coloured by patients' personal situation and material circumstances. Many found looking after themselves at home more difficult than they expected, while others continued to work despite their infection. Expensive car parking, late running services and the inconvenience of waiting in for the nurse to arrive frustrated patients, while efficient services, staffed by nurses with the specialist skills needed to manage intravenous treatment had the opposite effect. Many patients felt a local, general practitioner or community health centre based service would resolve many of the practical difficulties that made OPAT inconvenient. Patients could find OPAT anxiety provoking but this could be ameliorated by staff taking the time to reassure patients and provide tailored information.ConclusionServices configurations must accommodate the diversity of the local population. Poor communication can leave patients lacking the confidence needed to be a competent collaborator in their own care and affect their perceptions of the service.

Project description:IntroductionA marked increase in hospitalizations for severe, injection-related infections (SIRI) has been associated with the opioid epidemic. Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) is typically not offered to persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) and SIRI, though increasing evidence suggests it may be feasible and safe. This study evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an integrated care model combining Buprenorphine treatment of OUD with OPAT for SIRI (B-OPAT) compared with treatment as usual on key OUD, infectious disease, and health economic outcomes. B-OPAT expands and incorporates key elements of established clinical models, including inpatient initiation of buprenorphine for OUD, inpatient infectious disease consultation for SIRI, office-based treatment of OUD, and OPAT, and includes more frequent clinical outpatient visits than standard OPAT. A qualitative evaluation is included to contextualize effectiveness outcomes and identify barriers and facilitators to intervention adoption and implementation.MethodsB-OPAT is a single-site, randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial recruiting 90 adult inpatients hospitalized with OUD and SIRI who require at least 2 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. After screening, eligible participants are randomized 1:1 to either discharge once medically stable to an integrated outpatient treatment care model combining Buprenorphine and OPAT (B-OPAT) or to Treatment As Usual (TAU). The primary outcome measure is the proportion of urine samples negative for illicit opioids in the 12 weeks after discharge from the hospital. Key secondary OUD outcomes include self-reported number of days of illicit opioid abstinence and 12-week retention in buprenorphine treatment. The infection outcomes are completion of recommended IV antibiotic therapy, peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) complications, and readmission related to primary SIRI.ConclusionsThe B-OPAT study will help address the important question of whether it is clinically effective and cost-effective to discharge persons with OUD and SIRI to an integrated outpatient care model combining OUD treatment with OPAT relative to TAU (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04677114).