Cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis for the management of recurrent urinary tract infections in secondary care: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis in the management of recurrent urinary tract infections. DESIGN: Multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. SETTING: Eight centres in the UK, recruiting from June 2016 to June 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections, requiring prophylactic treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Women were randomised to receive once-daily antibiotic prophylaxis or twice-daily methenamine hippurate for 12 months. Treatment allocation was not masked and crossover between arms was allowed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 18 months. All costs were collected from a UK National Health Service perspective. QALYs were estimated based on responses to the EQ-5D-5L administered at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months. Incremental costs and QALYs were estimated using an adjusted analysis which controlled for observed and unobserved characteristics. Stochastic sensitivity analysis was used to illustrate uncertainty on a cost-effectiveness plane and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. A sensitivity analysis, not specified in the protocol, considered the costs associated with antibiotic resistance. RESULTS: Data on 205 participants were included in the economic analysis. On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly (-£40; 95% CI: -684 to 603) and more effective (0.014 QALYs; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.07) than antibiotic prophylaxis. Over the range of values considered for an additional QALY, the probability of methenamine hippurate being considered cost-effective ranged from 51% to 67%. CONCLUSIONS: On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly and more effective than antibiotic prophylaxis but these results are subject to uncertainty. Methenamine hippurate is more likely to be considered cost-effective when the benefits of reduced antibiotic use were included in the analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70219762.

Economic evaluation: immunoglobulin vs prophylactic antibiotics in hypogammaglobulinemia and hematological malignancies.

ABSTRACT: Patients with hematological malignancies are at high risk of developing hypogammaglobulinemia (HGG) and infections. Immunoglobulin (Ig) is one recommended option to prevent these infections, but it is expensive, and its cost-effectiveness compared with other prevention strategies remains unknown. We conducted a trial-based economic evaluation from the Australian health care system perspective to estimate the 12-month cost-effectiveness of prophylactic Ig vs prophylactic antibiotics in 63 adults with HGG and hematological malignancies participating in the RATIONAL feasibility trial. Two analyses were conducted: (1) cost-utility analysis to assess the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained; and (2) cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the incremental cost per serious infection prevented (grade ≥3) and per any infection (any grade) prevented. Over 12 months, the total cost per patient was significantly higher in the Ig group than in the antibiotic group (mean difference, AU$29 140; P < .001). Most patients received IVIg, which was the main cost driver; only 2 patients in the intervention arm received subcutaneous Ig. There were nonsignificant differences in health outcomes. Results showed Ig was more costly than antibiotics and associated with fewer QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Ig vs antibiotics was AU$111 262 per serious infection prevented, but Ig was more costly and associated with more infections when all infections were included. On average and for this patient population, Ig prophylaxis may not be cost-effective compared with prophylactic antibiotics. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in a larger population and considering longer-term outcomes. The trial was registered at the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry as #ACTRN12616001723471.

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of an Absorbable Antibacterial Envelope for Use in Patients at Increased Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection in Germany, Italy, and England.

OBJECTIVES: To model the cost-effectiveness of the TYRX Absorbable Antibacterial Envelope when used in patients at increased risk of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection in the context of 3 European healthcare systems: Germany, Italy, and England. METHODS: A decision tree model with a lifetime horizon was populated using data from the Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial, a large multicenter randomized controlled trial. Use of the antibacterial envelope adjunctive to standard of care was compared to standard of care infection prevention alone. Patients in the model were divided into subgroups based on presence of factors known to increase infection risk. RESULTS: The antibacterial envelope had the most favorable cost-effectiveness profile when patients had previously experienced CIED infection, had a history of immunosuppressive therapy, or had a Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) score indicating high risk of infection (scores ≥6) at cost-effectiveness thresholds of €50 000 in Germany (assumed in the absence of an official threshold), €40 000 in Italy, and £30 000 in England. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the antibacterial envelope was likely to be cost-effective in patients with other risk factors (including replacement of high power CIEDs, generator replacement with lead modification, and PADIT scores indicating intermediate risk of infection) when used with some device types and in some countries. CONCLUSIONS: The absorbable antibacterial envelope was associated with cost-effectiveness ratios below European benchmarks in selected patients at increased risk of infection, suggesting the envelope provides value for European healthcare systems by reducing CIED infections.

Wound infection following implant removal of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella; a protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin compared to placebo (WIFI-2 trial).

BACKGROUND: Elective implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation is one of the most common procedures within (orthopedic) trauma surgery. The rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in this procedure is quite high, especially below the level of the knee. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not routinely prescribed, even though it has proved to lower SSI rates in other (orthopedic) trauma surgical procedures. The primary objective is to study the effectiveness of a single intravenous dose of 2 g of cefazolin on SSIs after IR following fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures. METHODS: This is a multicenter, double-blind placebo controlled trial with a superiority design, including adult patients undergoing elective implant removal after fixation of a fracture of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Exclusion criteria are: an active infection, current antibiotic treatment, or a medical condition contraindicating prophylaxis with cefazolin including allergy. Patients are randomized to receive a single preoperative intravenous dose of either 2 g of cefazolin or a placebo (NaCl). The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat comparison of the proportion of patients with a SSI at 90 days after IR in both groups. DISCUSSION: If 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin proves to be both effective and cost-effective in preventing SSI, this would have implications for current guidelines. Combined with the high infection rate of IR which previous studies have shown, it would be sufficiently substantiated for guidelines to suggest protocolled use of prophylactic antibiotics in IR of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register (NTR): NL8284, registered on 9th of January 2020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8284.

A Clinical Decision Analysis for Use of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Nonabsorbable Nasal Packing.

OBJECTIVE: Nonabsorbable nasal packing is often placed for the treatment of epistaxis or after sinonasal or skull base surgery. Antibiotics are often prescribed to prevent toxic shock syndrome (TSS), a rare, potentially fatal occurrence. However, the risk of TSS must be balanced against the major risk of antibiotic use, specifically Clostridium difficile colitis (CDC). The purpose of this study is to evaluate in terms of cost-effectiveness whether antibiotics should be prescribed when nasal packing is placed. STUDY DESIGN: A clinical decision analysis was performed using a Markov model to evaluate whether antibiotics should be given. SETTING: Patients with nonabsorbable nasal packing placed. METHODS: Utility scores, probabilities, and costs were obtained from the literature. We assess the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic use when the risk of community-acquired CDC is balanced against the risk of TSS from nasal packing. Sensitivity analysis was performed for assumptions used in the model. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for antibiotic use was 334,493 US dollars (USD)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that not prescribing antibiotics was cost-effective in 98.0% of iterations at a willingness to pay of 50,000 USD/QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that when the risk of CDC from antibiotics was greater than 910/100,000 or when the incidence of TSS after nasal packing was less than 49/100,000 cases, the decision to withhold antibiotics was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Routine antibiotic prophylaxis in the setting of nasal packing is not cost-effective and should be reconsidered. Even if antibiotics are assumed to prevent TSS, the risk of complications from antibiotic use is of greater consequence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3a.

Effects of Prophylactic Antibiotics on Length of Stay and Total Costs for Pediatric Acute Pancreatitis: A Nationwide Database Study in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: Acute pancreatitis (AP) guidelines for adult patients do not recommend routine prophylactic use of antibiotics because of no clinical merit on mortality, infectious complications, or length of stay. Although the mortality of pediatric AP is low, no studies have explored the rationale for antibiotic use in pediatric patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of early prophylactic antibiotics on length of stay and total costs in pediatric patients. METHODS: Using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database from 2010 to 2017, we used the stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting method using propensity scores to balance the background characteristics in the antibiotics group and the control group, and compared length of stay and total costs between the groups. RESULTS: We found significant differences between the antibiotics group (n = 652) and the control group (n = 467) in length of stay (11 days vs 9 days; percent difference, 15.4%; 95% confidence interval, 5.0%-26.8%) and total costs (US $4085 vs US $3648; percent difference, 19.8%; 95% confidence interval, 8.0%-32.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic antibiotics were associated with longer length of stay and higher total costs. Our results do not support routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in pediatric AP populations.

Healthcare resources attributable to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus orthopedic surgical site infections.

The number of orthopedic surgeries is increasing as populations steadily age, but surgical site infection (SSI) rates remain relatively consistent. This study aimed to quantify the healthcare resources attributable to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) SSIs in orthopedic surgical patients. The analysis was conducted using a national claims database comprising data from almost all Japanese residents. We examined patients who underwent any of the following surgeries between April 2012 and March 2018: amputation (AMP), spinal fusion (FUSN), open reduction of fracture (FX), hip prosthesis (HPRO), knee prosthesis (KPRO), and laminectomy (LAM). Propensity score matching was performed to identify non-SSI control patients, and generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the differences in outcomes between the case and control groups. The numbers of MRSA SSI cases (infection rates) ranged from 64 (0.03%) to 1,152 (2.33%). MRSA SSI-attributable increases in healthcare expenditure ranged from $11,630 ($21,151 vs. $9,521) for LAM to $35,693 ($50,122 vs. $14,429) for FX, and increases in hospital stay ranged from 40.6 days (59.2 vs. 18.6) for LAM to 89.5 days (122.0 vs. 32.5) for FX. In conclusion, MRSA SSIs contribute to substantial increases in healthcare resource utilization, emphasizing the need to implement effective infection prevention measures for orthopedic surgeries.

Cost-Effectiveness of an Antibacterial Envelope for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection Prevention in the US Healthcare System From the WRAP-IT Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the WRAP-IT trial (Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention), adjunctive use of an absorbable antibacterial envelope resulted in a 40% reduction of major cardiac implantable electronic device infection without increased risk of complication in 6983 patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device revision, replacement, upgrade, or initial cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implant. There is limited information on the cost-effectiveness of this strategy. As a prespecified objective, we evaluated antibacterial envelope cost-effectiveness compared with standard-of-care infection prevention strategies in the US healthcare system. METHODS: A decision tree model was used to compare costs and outcomes of antibacterial envelope (TYRX) use adjunctive to standard-of-care infection prevention versus standard-of-care alone over a lifelong time horizon. The analysis was performed from an integrated payer-provider network perspective. Infection rates, antibacterial envelope effectiveness, infection treatment costs and patterns, infection-related mortality, and utility estimates were obtained from the WRAP-IT trial. Life expectancy and long-term costs associated with device replacement, follow-up, and healthcare utilization were sourced from the literature. Costs and quality-adjusted life years were discounted at 3%. An upper willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life year was used to determine cost-effectiveness, in alignment with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association practice guidelines and as supported by the World Health Organization and contemporary literature. RESULTS: The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the antibacterial envelope compared with standard-of-care was $112 603/quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold in 74% of iterations in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis and was most sensitive to the following model inputs: infection-related mortality, life expectancy, and infection cost. CONCLUSIONS: The absorbable antibacterial envelope was associated with a cost-effectiveness ratio below contemporary benchmarks in the WRAP-IT patient population, suggesting that the envelope provides value for the US healthcare system by reducing the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infection. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02277990.

Cefuroxime (Aprokam®) in the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Endophthalmitis After Cataract Surgery Versus Absence of Antibiotic Prophylaxis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Poland.

OBJECTIVE: The analysis aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of cefuroxime (Aprokam®) in the prophylaxis of postoperative endophthalmitis (POE) after cataract surgery compared with the absence of antibiotic prophylaxis from the National Health Fund perspective in Poland. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis using the decision tree and Markov model, respectively, for patients after cataract surgery. The efficacy of Aprokam was 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.55) and is based on the results of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery study. According to the epidemiological data from Poland, the risk of POE is 0.377%. The costs associated with the Aprokam administration and POE treatment costs were included. We determined the utilities of the health states in the model depending on visual loss due to POE. To determine the uncertainty of estimates parameters, a one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: Using Aprokam allows avoiding 0.003 POEs per patient. The benefit from the intervention is 0.0007 quality-adjusted life years per patient in the lifetime horizon. The total costs of prophylaxis are higher at about €1.70. The cost of avoiding one POE (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) is about €569.85. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness utility ratio is equal to €2427.72/quality-adjusted life-years, and it is significantly lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold in Poland in 2019 (about 7.5% of the threshold). In all scenarios of performed one-way sensitivity analyses, Aprokam is cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: In Poland, the use of Aprokam is cost-effective, with the estimated incremental cost-utility ratio significantly lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold.

Levofloxacin prophylaxis in hospitalized children with leukemia: A cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Infections are common and are a major cause of morbidity and mortality during treatment of childhood leukemia. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of levofloxacin antibiotic prophylaxis, compared to no prophylaxis, in children receiving chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). PROCEDURES: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from the perspective of the single-payer health care system using a lifetime horizon. A comprehensive literature review identified available evidence for effectiveness, safety, costs of antibiotic prophylaxis in children with leukemia, and health utilities associated with the relevant health states. The effects of levofloxacin prophylaxis on health outcomes, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and direct health costs were derived from a combined decision tree and state-transition model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the sensitivity of results to parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: The literature review revealed one randomized controlled trial on levofloxacin prophylaxis in childhood AML and relapsed ALL, by Alexander et al, that showed a significant reduction in rates of fever and neutropenia (71.2% vs 82.1%) and bacteremia (21.9% vs 43.4%) with levofloxacin compared to no prophylaxis. In our cost-utility analysis, levofloxacin prophylaxis was dominant over no prophylaxis, resulting in cost savings of $542.44 and increased survival of 0.13 QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, levofloxacin prophylaxis was dominant in 98.8% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis suggests that levofloxacin prophylaxis, compared to no prophylaxis, is cost saving in children receiving intensive chemotherapy for AML or relapsed ALL.

Cost-effectiveness of levofloxacin prophylaxis against bacterial infection in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Infections are the leading cause of therapy-related mortality in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Although effectiveness of levofloxacin antibacterial prophylaxis in oncology patients is recognized, its cost-effectiveness is unknown. This study evaluated epidemiologic data regarding levofloxacin use and the cost-effectiveness of this strategy as the cost per bacteremia episode, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death avoided in children with AML. PROCEDURE: A retrospective cohort study using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database compared demographic and clinical characteristics and receipt of levofloxacin prophylaxis in children with AML admitted for chemotherapy from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2018. We then developed a decision analysis model in this population that compared costs associated with bacteremia, ICU admission, or death secondary to bacteremia to levofloxacin prophylaxis cost from a healthcare perspective. Time horizon is one chemotherapy cycle. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses evaluated model uncertainty. RESULTS: Prophylaxis cost $8491 per bacteremia episode prevented compared with an average added hospital cost of $119 478. Prophylaxis cost $81 609 per ICU admission avoided, compared with an average added hospital cost of $94 181. Prophylaxis cost $220 457 per death avoided. In sensitivity analysis, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per bacteremia episode avoided, prophylaxis remained cost-effective in 94.6% of simulations. Prophylaxis use was more common in recent years in patients with relapsed disease and with chemotherapy regimens considered more intensive. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis is cost-effective in preventing bacterial infections in patients with AML. Findings support increased use in patients considered at high risk of bacterial infection secondary to myelosuppression.

Impact of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection: A Clinical and Economic Analysis of the WRAP-IT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Current understanding of the impact of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is based on retrospective analyses from medical records or administrative claims data. The WRAP-IT (Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial) offers an opportunity to evaluate the clinical and economic impacts of CIED infection from the hospital, payer, and patient perspectives in the US healthcare system. METHODS: This was a prespecified, as-treated analysis evaluating outcomes related to major CIED infections: mortality, quality of life, disruption of CIED therapy, healthcare utilization, and costs. Payer costs were assigned using medicare fee for service national payments, while medicare advantage, hospital, and patient costs were derived from similar hospital admissions in administrative datasets. RESULTS: Major CIED infection was associated with increased all-cause mortality (12-month risk-adjusted hazard ratio, 3.41 [95% CI, 1.81-6.41]; P<0.001), an effect that sustained beyond 12 months (hazard ratio through all follow-up, 2.30 [95% CI, 1.29-4.07]; P=0.004). Quality of life was reduced (P=0.004) and did not normalize for 6 months. Disruptions in CIED therapy were experienced in 36% of infections for a median duration of 184 days. Mean costs were $55 547±$45 802 for the hospital, $26 867±$14 893, for medicare fee for service and $57 978±$29 431 for Medicare Advantage (mean hospital margin of -$30 828±$39 757 for medicare fee for service and -$6055±$45 033 for medicare advantage). Mean out-of-pocket costs for patients were $2156±$1999 for medicare fee for service, and $1658±$1250 for medicare advantage. CONCLUSIONS: This large, prospective analysis corroborates and extends understanding of the impact of CIED infections as seen in real-world datasets. CIED infections severely impact mortality, quality of life, healthcare utilization, and cost in the US healthcare system. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT02277990.

Collaboration with an infection control team promoted appropriate antibiotic use for third molar extraction at a Japanese hospital.

Oral antibiotic therapy is routinely administered when a third molar (M3) is extracted to prevent infectious complications after surgery. Oral third-generation cephalosporins are frequently used after M3 extraction in Japan but at the expense of an increased risk of antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, the infection control team (ICT) at our institution recommended a reduction in use of these agents after M3 extraction. In this study, we compared the types of antibiotic agents prescribed for patients undergoing M3 extraction before and after this recommendation. We investigated the relationship between type of antibiotic used and the likelihood of infectious complications as well as cost savings in patients who underwent M3 extraction in the 6 months before and after the ICT recommendation in July 2018. There was a marked reduction in use of oral third-generation cephalosporins after M3 extraction (P < 0.0001) and increased use of oral penicillins and first-generation cephalosporins after the ICT recommendation. Moreover, surgical site infection (SSIs) were significantly less common after the ICT recommendation (P = 0.0099); however, the SSI rate was higher in patients who received a third-generation cephalosporin than in those who received penicillin (8.8% vs 0.5%). There was also a significant saving in per-patient antibiotic costs after the ICT recommendation (269.5 ± 282.0 JPY vs 454.7 ± 376.6 JPY; P < 0.0001). These findings suggest that collaboration with an ICT promotes appropriate antibiotic use, decreases the risk of an SSI, and improves the cost-benefit ratio in patients undergoing M3 extraction.

Preoperative oral antibiotic bowel preparation in elective resectional colorectal surgery reduces rates of surgical site infections: a single-centre experience with a cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infections cause considerable postoperative morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the effect on surgical site infection rates following introduction of a departmental oral antibiotic bowel preparation protocol. METHODS: A prospective single-centre study was performed for elective colorectal resections between May 2016-April 2018; with a control group with mechanical bowel preparation and treatment group with oral antibiotic bowel preparation (neomycin and metronidazole) and mechanical bowel preparation. The primary outcome of surgical site infection and secondary outcomes of anastomotic leak, length of stay and mortality rate were analysed using Fisher's exact test and independent samples t-tests. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 311 patients were included; 156 in the mechanical bowel preparation group and 155 in the mechanical bowel preparation plus oral antibiotic bowel preparation group. The study included 180 (57.9%) men and 131 (42.1%) women with a mean age of 68 years. There was a significant reduction in surgical site infection rates (mechanical bowel preparation 16.0% vs mechanical bowel preparation plus oral antibiotic bowel preparation 4.5%; P = 0.001) and mean length of stay (mechanical bowel preparation 10.2 days vs mechanical bowel preparation plus oral antibiotic bowel preparation 8.2 days; P = 0.012). There was also a reduction in anastomotic leak and mortality rates. Subgroup analyses demonstrated significantly reduced surgical site infection rates in laparoscopic resections (P = 0.008). There was an estimated cost saving of £239.13 per patient and £37,065 for our institution over a one-year period. CONCLUSION: Oral antibiotic bowel preparation is a feasible and cost-effective intervention shown to significantly reduce the rates of surgical site infection and length of stay in elective colorectal surgery.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotic use to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections.

PURPOSE: We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotic use to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision tree model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in preventing catheter-associated urinary tract infections for patients with a short-term indwelling urinary catheter. The model accounted for incidence of urinary tract infections with and without the use of prophylactic antibiotics, incidence of antibiotic-resistant urinary tract infections, as well as costs associated with diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections and antibiotic-resistant urinary tract infections. Costs were calculated from the health care system's perspective. We conducted one-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The base case analysis showed that the use of prophylactic antibiotics is cost-saving in preventing catheter-associated urinary tract infections. The use of prophylactic antibiotics resulted in lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years compared with no prophylactic antibiotics. Sensitivity analyses showed that the optimal strategy changes to no prophylactic antibiotics when the incidence of urinary tract infections after prophylactic antibiotics exceeds 22% or the incidence of developing urinary tract infections without prophylactic antibiotics is less than 12%. Varying the costs of prophylactic antibiotics, urinary tract infection treatment, or antibiotic-resistant urinary tract infection treatment within a reasonable range did not change the optimal strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic antibiotic use to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections is cost-effective under most conditions. These results were sensitive to the likelihood of developing catheter-associated urinary tract infections with and without prophylactic antibiotics. Our results are limited to the cost-effectiveness perspective on this clinical practice.

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

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.

Post-surgical antibiotic prophylaxis: Impact of pharmacist's educational intervention on appropriate use of antibiotics.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines assisted appropriate use of prophylactic antibiotics can lower the prevalence of surgical site infections (SSIs). The present study was conducted to evaluate the impact and cost-benefit value of pharmacist's educational intervention for antibiotic use in post-surgical prophylaxis. METHODS: A prospective quasi experimental study was conducted by enrolling 450 patients from tertiary care hospital of Lahore, Pakistan, 225 patients in each, control and intervention, arm using non-random convenient sampling. The study parameters included antibiotic indication, choice, dose, frequency, duration and associated costs. This study is registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry # ChiCTR-OON-17013246. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: After educational intervention, in post-intervention arm, total compliance in terms of correct antibiotic choice, dose, frequency and duration increased from 1.3% to 12.4%. The rate of inappropriate antibiotic choice did not change significantly. After intervention only metronidazole utilization decreased (16%) significantly (p=0.011). Significant reductions were observed in mean duration of antibiotic prophylaxis (17%, p=0.003), average number of prescribed antibiotics (9.1%, p=0.014) and average antibiotic cost (25.7%, p=0.03), with reduction in mean hospitalization cost (p=0.003) and length of stay (p=0.023). Educational intervention was significantly associated (OR; 2.4, p=0.005) with appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis. The benefit of pharmacist intervention, mean antibiotic cost savings to mean cost of pharmacist time, was 4.8:1. Thus, the educational intervention resulted in significant reductions in the duration and average number of antibiotic use having considerable effect on therapy and hospitalization cost.

Antimicrobial use-related problems and their costs in surgery ward of Jimma University Medical Center: Prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Antibiotics are among the most commonly misused of all drugs, which results in antibiotic resistance and waste of resources and it has not been studied in Ethiopia. Therefore, this study was carried out to assess antibiotic use-related problems and their costs among patients hospitalized at the surgical ward of Jimma University Medical Center. METHODS: Hospital-based prospective observational study was used to assess the prevalence, cost, and determinants of antibiotic use-related problems; multiple stepwise backward logistic regression analysis was done for a P value of < 0.25 to look for predictors of antibiotic use-related problems. Written informed consent was obtained and confidentiality was secured. RESULTS: Among 300 participants, antibiotic use-related problems (ABURPs) were found in 69.3% of the study participants. The direct total cost attributed to these problems was approximated to a minimum of 2230.15 US$. Independent predictors for antibiotic use-related problems were: indication for antibiotic use like: use of antibiotic for prophylaxis; p < 0.0001, antibiotic use for both therapeutic & prophylaxis; p < 0.0001, CDC wound class I and II; p = 0.016 and; p = 0.002 respectively, overall poly-pharmacy and greater than 2 antibiotic exposure during hospital stay; p = 0.019and p = 0.006 respectively and hospital stay for ≥21 days; p = 0.007. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of antibiotic use-related problems was high and resulted in extra cost. Antibiotic use for prophylaxis, prophylaxis, and treatment, poly-pharmacy, greater than 2 antibiotic exposures during the hospital stay, CDC wound class I and II, and duration of hospital stay of ≥ 21 days was found to be independent predictors of antibiotic use-related problems.

Economic impact of introducing TYRX amongst patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction undergoing implanted cardiac device procedures: a retrospective model based cost analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Infection is a serious and expensive complication of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) procedures. A retrospective based cost analysis was performed to estimate Trust level savings of using the TYRX antibacterial envelope as a primary prevention measure against infection in a tertiary referral centre in South London, UK. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction undergoing Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) or Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) procedures were evaluated. Decision-analytic modelling was performed to determine economic savings of using the envelope during CIED procedure vs CIED procedure alone. RESULTS: Over a 12 month follow-up period following CIED procedure, the observed infection rate was 3.14% (n = 5/159). The average cost of a CIED infection inpatient admission was £41,820 and, further to economic analysis, the additional costs attributable to infection was calculated at £62,213.94. A cost saving of £624 per patient by using TYRX during CIED procedure as a primary preventative measure against infection was estimated. CONCLUSIONS: TYRX would be a cost-saving treatment option amongst heart failure patients undergoing ICD and CRT device procedures based on analysis in the local geographical area of South London. If upscaled to the UK population, we estimate potential cost savings for the National Health Service (NHS).

Financial Burden of Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections in Women: A Time-driven Activity-based Cost Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To utilize Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing to quantify costs of managing recurrent urinary tract infections (RUTI) in women. METHODS: RUTI was defined as ≥2 UTIs in 6 months or ≥3 UTIs in 12 months. A care-delivery value chain outlined RUTI management (visits, urine studies, and imaging) for acute UTI followed by a form of long-term prevention. Prevention strategies included conservative therapy (Cranberry tablets, d-mannose, or lactobacillus); Estrogen therapy if postmenopausal; Antibiotic use (self-start, postcoital, or continuous regimens); or intravenous antibiotics in case of drug-resistance or intolerance. Costs of each resource were largely obtained from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, GoodRx and local pharmacy pricing, and institutional expenses. The capacity cost rate was defined as cost of resources per minute of care. Individual costs were summed to estimate overall expense of initial RUTI workup and annual cost for each long-term prevention strategy. RESULTS: Cost of acute RUTI workup ranged from $390 to $730. Acute antibiotics cost ranged from $10 for oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole to $3970 for intravenous Ertapenem. Annually, mean cost of conservative therapy ranged from $50 for d-mannose to $1290 for vaginal estradiol ring, and antibiotic use for self-start $40, postcoital $60, and continuous $190. Capacity cost rate ranged from $0.003/min for urine culture to $80/min for estrogen ring. CONCLUSION: Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing, costs of RUTI management were efficiently determined. This offers new perspectives for patient counseling and long-term decision making.