1. Cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of C-reactive protein point-of-care testing in comparison with usual care to reduce antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infections in nursing homes
- Author
-
Tjarda M Boere, Mohamed El Alili, Laura W van Buul, Rogier M Hopstaken, Theo J M Verheij, Cees M P M Hertogh, Maurits W van Tulder, Judith E Bosmans, Elderly care medicine, APH - Aging & Later Life, Psychiatry, APH - Mental Health, VUmc - School of Medical Sciences, Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, AMS - Musculoskeletal Health, APH - Methodology, APH - Societal Participation & Health, Family Medicine, and RS: CAPHRI - R5 - Optimising Patient Care
- Subjects
Respiratory Tract Infections/diagnosis ,Physicians' ,Cost-Benefit Analysis ,General Medicine ,Practice Patterns ,Anti-Bacterial Agents ,Nursing Homes ,Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use ,C-Reactive Protein ,SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being ,Point-of-Care Testing ,Humans ,Practice Patterns, Physicians' ,Respiratory Tract Infections - Abstract
ObjectivesC-reactive protein point-of-care testing (CRP POCT) is a promising diagnostic tool to guide antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) in nursing home residents. This study aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment (ROI) of CRP POCT compared with usual care for nursing home residents with suspected LRTI from a healthcare perspective.DesignEconomic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised, controlled trial.Setting11 Dutch nursing homes.Participants241 nursing home residents with a newly suspected LRTI.InterventionNursing home access to CRP POCT (POCT-guided care) was compared with usual care without CRP POCT (usual care).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure for the cost-effectiveness analysis was antibiotic prescribing at initial consultation, and the secondary outcome was full recovery at 3 weeks. ROI analyses included intervention costs, and benefits related to antibiotic prescribing. Three ROI metrics were calculated: Net Benefits, Benefit-Cost-Ratio and Return-On-Investment.ResultsIn POCT-guided care, total costs were on average €32 higher per patient, the proportion of avoided antibiotic prescribing was higher (0.47 vs 0.18; 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.42) and the proportion of fully recovered patients statistically non-significantly lower (0.86 vs 0.91; −0.05, 95% CI −0.14 to 0.05) compared with usual care. On average, an avoided antibiotic prescription was associated with an investment of €137 in POCT-guided care compared with usual care. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were relatively robust. Taking the ROI metrics together, the probability of financial return was 0.65.ConclusionPOCT-guided care effectively reduces antibiotic prescribing compared with usual care without significant effects on recovery rates, but requires an investment. Future studies should take into account potential beneficial effects of POCT-guided care on costs and health outcomes related to antibiotic resistance.Trial registration numberNL5054.
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF