Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Active Surveillance Screening for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a Tertiary Hospital Setting

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. E209-E210
Author(s):  
JaHyun Kang ◽  
Paul Mandsager ◽  
Andrea Biddle ◽  
David Weber
2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 477-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
JaHyun Kang ◽  
Paul Mandsager ◽  
Andrea K. Biddle ◽  
David J. Weber

Objective.To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 alternative active screening strategies for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): universal surveillance screening for all hospital admissions, targeted surveillance screening for intensive care unit admissions, and no surveillance screening.Design.Cost-effectiveness analysis using decision modeling.Methods.Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the perspective of an 800-bed academic hospital with 40,000 annual admissions over the time horizon of a hospitalization. All input probabilities, costs, and outcome data were obtained through a comprehensive literature review. Effectiveness outcome was MRSA healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results.In the base case, targeted surveillance screening was a dominant strategy (ie, was associated with lower costs and resulted in better outcomes) for preventing MRSA HAL Universal surveillance screening was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $14,955 per MRSA HAL In one-way sensitivity analysis, targeted surveillance screening was a dominant strategy across most parameter ranges. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also demonstrated that targeted surveillance screening was the most cost-effective strategy when willingness to pay to prevent a case of MRSA HAI was less than $71,300.Conclusion.Targeted active surveillance screening for MRSA is the most cost-effective screening strategy in an academic hospital setting. Additional studies that are based on actual hospital data are needed to validate this model. However, the model supports current recommendations to use active surveillance to detect MRSA.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S143-S144
Author(s):  
Michelle Vu ◽  
Kenneth Smith ◽  
Sherrie L Aspinall ◽  
Cornelius J Clancy ◽  
Deanna Buehrle

Abstract Background Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections (MRSAB) cause significant mortality and often require extended antibiotic therapy. Vancomycin, the most common initial MRSAB treatment, carries significant monitoring burden and nephrotoxicity risks. We compared cost-effectiveness of vancomycin and other antibiotic regimens as MRSAB treatment. Methods We estimated cost-effectiveness of intravenous antibiotics (vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, ceftaroline/daptomycin, dalbavancin) for Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients with MRSAB using an exploratory decision-tree model. Primary effectiveness outcome was composite of microbiological failure and adverse drug event (ADE)-related discontinuation at 7-days. Results In base-case analyses, linezolid and daptomycin were less expensive and had fewer treatment failures than other regimens at 4 and 6-weeks. Compared to linezolid, daptomycin incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were ~$45,000 (4-weeks) and ~$61,000 (6-weeks) per composite failure avoided, respectively. In one-way sensitivity analyses, daptomycin (4-weeks) was favored over linezolid if linezolid microbiological failure or ADE-related discontinuation rates were >14.8% (base case: 14.0%) or >14.3% (base case: 14.0%), respectively, assuming a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $40,000/ composite treatment failure avoided. Vancomycin was favored if its microbiological failure risk was < 16.4% (base case: 27.2%). In two-way sensitivity analyses, daptomycin was favored if linezolid microbiological failure and ADE-related discontinuation rates were >19% and > 16%, respectively. Linezolid, daptomycin and vancomycin were favored in 47%, 39%, and 11% of 4-week probabilistic iterations, respectively, at $40,000 WTP. Conclusion Daptomycin or linezolid are likely less expensive and more effective than vancomycin or other initial regimens for MRSAB. More data are needed to support safety of linezolid in MRSAB patients. Disclosures Cornelius J. Clancy, MD, Astellas (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Cidara (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Melinta (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Needham Associates (Consultant)Qpex (Consultant)Scynexis (Consultant)Shionogi (Consultant)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document