Cargando…

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

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 patien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dimitrova, Maria, Gilchrist, Mark, Seaton, R A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8479950/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34588251
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049733
_version_ 1784576369661837312
author Dimitrova, Maria
Gilchrist, Mark
Seaton, R A
author_facet Dimitrova, Maria
Gilchrist, Mark
Seaton, R A
author_sort Dimitrova, Maria
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8479950
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84799502021-10-08 Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) versus inpatient care in the UK: a health economic assessment for six key diagnoses Dimitrova, Maria Gilchrist, Mark Seaton, R A BMJ Open Health Economics 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-09-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8479950/ /pubmed/34588251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049733 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Health Economics
Dimitrova, Maria
Gilchrist, Mark
Seaton, R A
Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) versus inpatient care in the UK: a health economic assessment for six key diagnoses
title Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) versus inpatient care in the UK: a health economic assessment for six key diagnoses
title_full Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) versus inpatient care in the UK: a health economic assessment for six key diagnoses
title_fullStr Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) versus inpatient care in the UK: a health economic assessment for six key diagnoses
title_full_unstemmed Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) versus inpatient care in the UK: a health economic assessment for six key diagnoses
title_short Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) versus inpatient care in the UK: a health economic assessment for six key diagnoses
title_sort outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (opat) versus inpatient care in the uk: a health economic assessment for six key diagnoses
topic Health Economics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8479950/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34588251
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049733
work_keys_str_mv AT dimitrovamaria outpatientparenteralantimicrobialtherapyopatversusinpatientcareintheukahealtheconomicassessmentforsixkeydiagnoses
AT gilchristmark outpatientparenteralantimicrobialtherapyopatversusinpatientcareintheukahealtheconomicassessmentforsixkeydiagnoses
AT seatonra outpatientparenteralantimicrobialtherapyopatversusinpatientcareintheukahealtheconomicassessmentforsixkeydiagnoses