Cargando…

A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs

There is a lack of formal economic analysis to assess the efficiency of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Herein, we conducted a cost-effectiveness study to assess two different strategies of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. A 30-day Markov model was developed to analyze how cost-effective was...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Okumura, Lucas Miyake, Riveros, Bruno Salgado, Gomes-da-Silva, Monica Maria, Veroneze, Izelandia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9425487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27094234
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2016.02.005
_version_ 1784778460270428160
author Okumura, Lucas Miyake
Riveros, Bruno Salgado
Gomes-da-Silva, Monica Maria
Veroneze, Izelandia
author_facet Okumura, Lucas Miyake
Riveros, Bruno Salgado
Gomes-da-Silva, Monica Maria
Veroneze, Izelandia
author_sort Okumura, Lucas Miyake
collection PubMed
description There is a lack of formal economic analysis to assess the efficiency of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Herein, we conducted a cost-effectiveness study to assess two different strategies of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. A 30-day Markov model was developed to analyze how cost-effective was a Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship implemented in a university hospital in Brazil. Clinical data derived from a historical cohort that compared two different strategies of antimicrobial stewardship programs and had 30-day mortality as main outcome. Selected costs included: workload, cost of defined daily doses, length of stay, laboratory and imaging resources used to diagnose infections. Data were analyzed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess model's robustness, tornado diagram and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve. Bundled Strategy was more expensive (Cost difference US$ 2119.70), however, it was more efficient (US$ 27,549.15 vs 29,011.46). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that critical variables did not alter final Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. Bundled Strategy had higher probabilities of being cost-effective, which was endorsed by cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. As health systems claim for efficient technologies, this study conclude that Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program was more cost-effective, which means that stewardship strategies with such characteristics would be of special interest in a societal and clinical perspective.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9425487
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94254872022-08-31 A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs Okumura, Lucas Miyake Riveros, Bruno Salgado Gomes-da-Silva, Monica Maria Veroneze, Izelandia Braz J Infect Dis Original Article There is a lack of formal economic analysis to assess the efficiency of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Herein, we conducted a cost-effectiveness study to assess two different strategies of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs. A 30-day Markov model was developed to analyze how cost-effective was a Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship implemented in a university hospital in Brazil. Clinical data derived from a historical cohort that compared two different strategies of antimicrobial stewardship programs and had 30-day mortality as main outcome. Selected costs included: workload, cost of defined daily doses, length of stay, laboratory and imaging resources used to diagnose infections. Data were analyzed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess model's robustness, tornado diagram and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve. Bundled Strategy was more expensive (Cost difference US$ 2119.70), however, it was more efficient (US$ 27,549.15 vs 29,011.46). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that critical variables did not alter final Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio. Bundled Strategy had higher probabilities of being cost-effective, which was endorsed by cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. As health systems claim for efficient technologies, this study conclude that Bundled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program was more cost-effective, which means that stewardship strategies with such characteristics would be of special interest in a societal and clinical perspective. Elsevier 2016-04-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9425487/ /pubmed/27094234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2016.02.005 Text en © 2016 Elsevier Editora Ltda. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Okumura, Lucas Miyake
Riveros, Bruno Salgado
Gomes-da-Silva, Monica Maria
Veroneze, Izelandia
A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs
title A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs
title_full A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs
title_fullStr A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs
title_full_unstemmed A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs
title_short A cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs
title_sort cost-effectiveness analysis of two different antimicrobial stewardship programs
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9425487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27094234
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2016.02.005
work_keys_str_mv AT okumuralucasmiyake acosteffectivenessanalysisoftwodifferentantimicrobialstewardshipprograms
AT riverosbrunosalgado acosteffectivenessanalysisoftwodifferentantimicrobialstewardshipprograms
AT gomesdasilvamonicamaria acosteffectivenessanalysisoftwodifferentantimicrobialstewardshipprograms
AT veronezeizelandia acosteffectivenessanalysisoftwodifferentantimicrobialstewardshipprograms
AT okumuralucasmiyake costeffectivenessanalysisoftwodifferentantimicrobialstewardshipprograms
AT riverosbrunosalgado costeffectivenessanalysisoftwodifferentantimicrobialstewardshipprograms
AT gomesdasilvamonicamaria costeffectivenessanalysisoftwodifferentantimicrobialstewardshipprograms
AT veronezeizelandia costeffectivenessanalysisoftwodifferentantimicrobialstewardshipprograms