Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin testing to guide antibiotic treatment duration in critically ill patients: results from a randomised controlled multicentre trial in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: Procalcitonin (PCT) testing can help in safely reducing antibiotic treatment duration in intensive care patients with sepsis. However, the cost-effectiveness of such PCT guidance is not yet known. METHODS: A trial-based analysis was performed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of PCT gui...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kip, Michelle M. A., van Oers, Jos A., Shajiei, Arezoo, Beishuizen, Albertus, Berghuis, A. M. Sofie, Girbes, Armand R., de Jong, Evelien, de Lange, Dylan W., Nijsten, Maarten W. N., IJzerman, Maarten J., Koffijberg, Hendrik, Kusters, Ron
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30424796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2234-3
_version_ 1783370737064607744
author Kip, Michelle M. A.
van Oers, Jos A.
Shajiei, Arezoo
Beishuizen, Albertus
Berghuis, A. M. Sofie
Girbes, Armand R.
de Jong, Evelien
de Lange, Dylan W.
Nijsten, Maarten W. N.
IJzerman, Maarten J.
Koffijberg, Hendrik
Kusters, Ron
author_facet Kip, Michelle M. A.
van Oers, Jos A.
Shajiei, Arezoo
Beishuizen, Albertus
Berghuis, A. M. Sofie
Girbes, Armand R.
de Jong, Evelien
de Lange, Dylan W.
Nijsten, Maarten W. N.
IJzerman, Maarten J.
Koffijberg, Hendrik
Kusters, Ron
author_sort Kip, Michelle M. A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Procalcitonin (PCT) testing can help in safely reducing antibiotic treatment duration in intensive care patients with sepsis. However, the cost-effectiveness of such PCT guidance is not yet known. METHODS: A trial-based analysis was performed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of PCT guidance compared with standard of care (without PCT guidance). Patient-level data were used from the SAPS trial in which 1546 patients were randomised. This trial was performed in the Netherlands, which is a country with, on average, low antibiotic use and a short duration of hospital stay. As quality of life among sepsis survivors was not measured during the SAPS, this was derived from a Dutch follow-up study. Outcome measures were (1) incremental direct hospital cost and (2) incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from a healthcare perspective over a one-year time horizon. Uncertainty in outcomes was assessed with bootstrapping. RESULTS: Mean in-hospital costs were €46,081/patient in the PCT group compared with €46,146/patient with standard of care (i.e. − €65 (95% CI − €6314 to €6107); − 0.1%). The duration of the first course of antibiotic treatment was lower in the PCT group with 6.9 vs. 8.2 days (i.e. − 1.2 days (95% CI − 1.9 to − 0.4), − 14.8%). This was accompanied by lower in-hospital mortality of 21.8% vs. 29.8% (absolute decrease 7.9% (95% CI − 13.9% to − 1.8%), relative decrease 26.6%), resulting in an increase in mean QALYs/patient from 0.47 to 0.52 (i.e. + 0.05 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.10); + 10.1%). However, owing to high costs among sepsis survivors, healthcare costs over a one-year time horizon were €73,665/patient in the PCT group compared with €70,961/patient with standard of care (i.e. + €2704 (95% CI − €4495 to €10,005), + 3.8%), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €57,402/QALY gained. Within this time frame, the probability of PCT guidance being cost-effective was 64% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Although the impact of PCT guidance on total healthcare-related costs during the initial hospitalisation episode is likely negligible, the lower in-hospital mortality may lead to a non-significant increase in costs over a one-year time horizon. However, since uncertainty remains, it is recommended to investigate the long-term cost-effectiveness of PCT guidance, from a societal perspective, in different countries and settings. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2234-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6234639
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62346392018-11-23 Cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin testing to guide antibiotic treatment duration in critically ill patients: results from a randomised controlled multicentre trial in the Netherlands Kip, Michelle M. A. van Oers, Jos A. Shajiei, Arezoo Beishuizen, Albertus Berghuis, A. M. Sofie Girbes, Armand R. de Jong, Evelien de Lange, Dylan W. Nijsten, Maarten W. N. IJzerman, Maarten J. Koffijberg, Hendrik Kusters, Ron Crit Care Research BACKGROUND: Procalcitonin (PCT) testing can help in safely reducing antibiotic treatment duration in intensive care patients with sepsis. However, the cost-effectiveness of such PCT guidance is not yet known. METHODS: A trial-based analysis was performed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of PCT guidance compared with standard of care (without PCT guidance). Patient-level data were used from the SAPS trial in which 1546 patients were randomised. This trial was performed in the Netherlands, which is a country with, on average, low antibiotic use and a short duration of hospital stay. As quality of life among sepsis survivors was not measured during the SAPS, this was derived from a Dutch follow-up study. Outcome measures were (1) incremental direct hospital cost and (2) incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from a healthcare perspective over a one-year time horizon. Uncertainty in outcomes was assessed with bootstrapping. RESULTS: Mean in-hospital costs were €46,081/patient in the PCT group compared with €46,146/patient with standard of care (i.e. − €65 (95% CI − €6314 to €6107); − 0.1%). The duration of the first course of antibiotic treatment was lower in the PCT group with 6.9 vs. 8.2 days (i.e. − 1.2 days (95% CI − 1.9 to − 0.4), − 14.8%). This was accompanied by lower in-hospital mortality of 21.8% vs. 29.8% (absolute decrease 7.9% (95% CI − 13.9% to − 1.8%), relative decrease 26.6%), resulting in an increase in mean QALYs/patient from 0.47 to 0.52 (i.e. + 0.05 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.10); + 10.1%). However, owing to high costs among sepsis survivors, healthcare costs over a one-year time horizon were €73,665/patient in the PCT group compared with €70,961/patient with standard of care (i.e. + €2704 (95% CI − €4495 to €10,005), + 3.8%), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €57,402/QALY gained. Within this time frame, the probability of PCT guidance being cost-effective was 64% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Although the impact of PCT guidance on total healthcare-related costs during the initial hospitalisation episode is likely negligible, the lower in-hospital mortality may lead to a non-significant increase in costs over a one-year time horizon. However, since uncertainty remains, it is recommended to investigate the long-term cost-effectiveness of PCT guidance, from a societal perspective, in different countries and settings. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2234-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-11-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6234639/ /pubmed/30424796 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2234-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Kip, Michelle M. A.
van Oers, Jos A.
Shajiei, Arezoo
Beishuizen, Albertus
Berghuis, A. M. Sofie
Girbes, Armand R.
de Jong, Evelien
de Lange, Dylan W.
Nijsten, Maarten W. N.
IJzerman, Maarten J.
Koffijberg, Hendrik
Kusters, Ron
Cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin testing to guide antibiotic treatment duration in critically ill patients: results from a randomised controlled multicentre trial in the Netherlands
title Cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin testing to guide antibiotic treatment duration in critically ill patients: results from a randomised controlled multicentre trial in the Netherlands
title_full Cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin testing to guide antibiotic treatment duration in critically ill patients: results from a randomised controlled multicentre trial in the Netherlands
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin testing to guide antibiotic treatment duration in critically ill patients: results from a randomised controlled multicentre trial in the Netherlands
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin testing to guide antibiotic treatment duration in critically ill patients: results from a randomised controlled multicentre trial in the Netherlands
title_short Cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin testing to guide antibiotic treatment duration in critically ill patients: results from a randomised controlled multicentre trial in the Netherlands
title_sort cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin testing to guide antibiotic treatment duration in critically ill patients: results from a randomised controlled multicentre trial in the netherlands
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30424796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2234-3
work_keys_str_mv AT kipmichellema costeffectivenessofprocalcitonintestingtoguideantibiotictreatmentdurationincriticallyillpatientsresultsfromarandomisedcontrolledmulticentretrialinthenetherlands
AT vanoersjosa costeffectivenessofprocalcitonintestingtoguideantibiotictreatmentdurationincriticallyillpatientsresultsfromarandomisedcontrolledmulticentretrialinthenetherlands
AT shajieiarezoo costeffectivenessofprocalcitonintestingtoguideantibiotictreatmentdurationincriticallyillpatientsresultsfromarandomisedcontrolledmulticentretrialinthenetherlands
AT beishuizenalbertus costeffectivenessofprocalcitonintestingtoguideantibiotictreatmentdurationincriticallyillpatientsresultsfromarandomisedcontrolledmulticentretrialinthenetherlands
AT berghuisamsofie costeffectivenessofprocalcitonintestingtoguideantibiotictreatmentdurationincriticallyillpatientsresultsfromarandomisedcontrolledmulticentretrialinthenetherlands
AT girbesarmandr costeffectivenessofprocalcitonintestingtoguideantibiotictreatmentdurationincriticallyillpatientsresultsfromarandomisedcontrolledmulticentretrialinthenetherlands
AT dejongevelien costeffectivenessofprocalcitonintestingtoguideantibiotictreatmentdurationincriticallyillpatientsresultsfromarandomisedcontrolledmulticentretrialinthenetherlands
AT delangedylanw costeffectivenessofprocalcitonintestingtoguideantibiotictreatmentdurationincriticallyillpatientsresultsfromarandomisedcontrolledmulticentretrialinthenetherlands
AT nijstenmaartenwn costeffectivenessofprocalcitonintestingtoguideantibiotictreatmentdurationincriticallyillpatientsresultsfromarandomisedcontrolledmulticentretrialinthenetherlands
AT ijzermanmaartenj costeffectivenessofprocalcitonintestingtoguideantibiotictreatmentdurationincriticallyillpatientsresultsfromarandomisedcontrolledmulticentretrialinthenetherlands
AT koffijberghendrik costeffectivenessofprocalcitonintestingtoguideantibiotictreatmentdurationincriticallyillpatientsresultsfromarandomisedcontrolledmulticentretrialinthenetherlands
AT kustersron costeffectivenessofprocalcitonintestingtoguideantibiotictreatmentdurationincriticallyillpatientsresultsfromarandomisedcontrolledmulticentretrialinthenetherlands