Dataset Information

Economic Evaluations of New Antibiotics: The High Potential Value of Reducing Healthcare Transmission Through Decolonization.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Antibiotics designed to decolonize carriers of drug-resistant organisms could offer substantial population health benefits, particularly if they can help avert outbreaks by interrupting person-to-person transmission chains. However, cost effectiveness of an antibiotic is typically evaluated only according to its benefits to recipients, which can be difficult to demonstrate for carriers of an organism that may not pose an immediate health threat to the carrier.

Methods

We developed a mathematical transmission model to quantify the effects of 2 hypothetical antibiotics targeting carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) among long-term acute care hospital inpatients: one assumed to decrease the death rate of patients with CRE bloodstream infections (BSIs) and the other assumed to decolonize CRE carriers after clinical detection. We quantified the effect of each antibiotic on the number of BSIs and deaths among patients receiving the drug (direct effect) and among all patients (direct and indirect effect) compared to usual care. We applied these results to a cost-effectiveness analysis with effectiveness outcome of life-years gained and assumed costs for antibiotic doses and for CRE BSI.

Results

The decolonizing antibiotic, once indirect effects were included, produced increased relative effectiveness and decreased relative costs compared to both usual care and the BSI treatment antibiotic. In fact, in most scenarios, the decolonizing drug was the dominant treatment strategy (ie, less costly and more effective).

Conclusions

Antibiotics that decolonize carriers of drug-resistant organisms can be highly cost-effective when considering indirect benefits within populations vulnerable to outbreaks. Public health could benefit from finding ways to incentivize development of decolonizing antibiotics in the US, where drugs with unclear direct benefits to recipients would pose difficulties in achieving FDA approval and financial benefit to the developer.

SUBMITTER: Toth DJA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8785944 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To systematically review and appraise the quality of economic evaluations assessing centralisation of specialised healthcare services.A systematic review to identify economic evaluations on centralisation of any specialised healthcare service. Full economic evaluations comparing costs and consequences of centralisation of any specialised healthcare service were eligible for inclusion. Methodological characteristics of included studies were appraised using checklists adapted from recommended guidelines.A total of 64 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. Two studies were conducted in the UK. Most of the studies used volume of activity as a proxy measure of centralisation. The methods used to assess centralisation were heterogeneous. Studies differed in terms of study design used and aspect of centralisation they considered. There were major limitations in studies. Only 12 studies reported the study perspective. Charges which are not true representation of costs were used by 17 studies to assess cost outcomes. Only 10 reported the detailed breakdown of the cost components used in their analysis. Discounting was necessary in 14 studies but was reported only in 7 studies. Sensitivity analyses were included by less than one-third of the studies. The applicability of the identified studies to a setting other than the one they were conducted in is questionable, given variations in the organisation of services and healthcare costs. Centralisation as a concept has also been variably and narrowly defined as activity of specific services which may not reflect the wider aspects of centralisation.Confounded and biased information coming from studies without standardised methods may mislead decision-makers towards making wrong decisions on centralisation. It is important to improve the methodology and reporting of economic evaluations in order to provide more robust and transferable evidence. Wider aspects of healthcare centralisation should be considered in the estimates of costs and health outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In increasingly constrained healthcare budgets worldwide, efforts to improve quality and reduce costs are vital. Quality Improvement Collaboratives (QICs) are often used in healthcare settings to implement proven clinical interventions within local and national programs. The cost of this method of implementation, however, is cited as a barrier to use. This systematic review aims to identify and describe studies reporting on costs and cost-effectiveness of QICs when used to implement clinical guidelines in healthcare. METHODS:Multiple databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, EconLit and ProQuest) were searched for economic evaluations or cost studies of QICs in healthcare. Studies were included if they reported on economic evaluations or costs of QICs. Two authors independently reviewed citations and full text papers. Key characteristics of eligible studies were extracted, and their quality assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Evers CHEC-List was used for full economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness findings were interpreted through the Johanna Briggs Institute 'three by three dominance matrix tool' to guide conclusions. Currencies were converted to United States dollars for 2018 using OECD and World Bank databases. RESULTS:Few studies reported on costs or economic evaluations of QICs despite their use in healthcare. Eight studies across multiple healthcare settings in acute and long-term care, community addiction treatment and chronic disease management were included. Five were considered good quality and favoured the establishment of QICs as cost-effective implementation methods. The cost savings to the healthcare setting identified in these studies outweighed the cost of the collaborative itself. CONCLUSIONS:Potential cost savings to the health care system in both acute and chronic conditions may be possible by applying QICs at scale. However, variations in effectiveness, costs and elements of the method within studies, indicated that caution is needed. Consistent identification of costs and description of the elements applied in QICs would better inform decisions for their use and may reduce perceived barriers. Lack of studies with negative findings may have been due to publication bias. Future research should include economic evaluations with societal perspectives of costs and savings and the cost-effectiveness of elements of QICs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018107417.

Project description:In this paper, we examine the cost effectiveness of investment in personal protective equipment (PPE) for protecting health care workers (HCWs) against two infectious diseases: Ebola virus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This builds on similar work published for COVID-19 in 2020. We developed two separate decision-analytic models using a payer perspective to compare the costs and effects of multiple PPE use scenarios for protection of HCW against Ebola and MRSA. Bayesian multivariate sensitivity analyses were used to consider the uncertainty surrounding all key parameters for both diseases. We estimate the cost to provide adequate PPE for a HCW encounter with an Ebola patient is $13.04, which is associated with a 97% risk reduction in infections. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $3.98 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Because of lowered infection and disability rates, this investment is estimated to save $132.27 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 1,014%. For MRSA, the cost of adequate PPE for one HCW encounter is $0.88, which is associated with a 53% risk reduction in infections. The mean ICER is $362.14 per DALY averted. This investment is estimated to save $20.18 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 2,294%. In terms of total health savings per death averted, investing in adequate PPE is the dominant strategy for Ebola and MRSA, suggesting that it is both more costly and less clinically optimal to not fully invest in PPE for these diseases. There are many compelling reasons to invest in PPE to protect HCWs. This analysis examines the economic case, building on previous evidence that protecting HCWs with PPE is cost-effective for COVD-19. Ebola and MRSA scenarios were selected to allow assessment of both endemic and epidemic infectious diseases. While PPE is cost-effective for both conditions, compared to our analysis for COVID-19, PPE is relatively more cost-effective for Ebola and relatively less so for MRSA. Further research is needed to assess shortfalls in the PPE supply chain identified during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure an efficient and resilient supply in the face of future pandemics.

Project description:BackgroundFaecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is increasingly being used in the treatment of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI). Health economic evaluations may support decision-making regarding the implementation of FMT in clinical practice. Previous reviews have highlighted several methodological concerns in published health economic evaluations examining FMT. However, the impact of these concerns on the conclusions of the studies remains unclear.AimsTo present an overview and assess the methodological quality of health economic evaluations that compare FMT with antibiotics for treatment of rCDI. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate the degree to which any methodological concerns would affect conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of FMT.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review based on a search in seven medical databases up to 16 July 2020. We included research articles reporting on full health economic evaluations comparing FMT with antibiotic treatment for rCDI. General study characteristics and input estimates for costs, effectiveness and utilities were extracted from the articles. The quality of the studies was assessed by two authors using the Drummonds ten-point checklist.ResultsWe identified seven cost-utility analyses. All studies applied decision-analytic modelling and compared various FMT delivery methods with vancomycin, fidaxomicin, metronidazole or a combination of vancomycin and bezlotoxumab. The time horizons used in the analyses varied from 78 days to lifelong, and the perspectives differed between a societal, a healthcare system or a third-party payer perspective. The applied willingness-to-pay threshold ranged from 20,000 to 68,000 Great Britain pound sterling (GBP) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). FMT was considered the most cost-effective alternative in all studies. In five of the health economic evaluations, FMT was both more effective and cost saving than antibiotic treatment alternatives. The quality of the articles varied, and we identified several methodological concerns.ConclusionsEconomic evaluations consistently reported that FMT is a cost-effective and potentially cost-saving treatment for rCDI. Based on a comparison with recent evidence within the area, the multiple methodological concerns seem not to change this conclusion. Therefore, implementing FMT for rCDI in clinical practice should be strongly considered.