IAME, UMR 1137, INSERM, Paris, France.
University of Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 3;7(11):e017402. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017402.
Several control strategies have been used to limit the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms in hospitals. However, their implementation is expensive and effectiveness of interventions for the control of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE) spread is controversial. Here, we aim to assess the cost-effectiveness of hospital-based strategies to prevent ESBL-PE transmission and infections.
Cost-effectiveness analysis based on dynamic, stochastic transmission model over a 1-year time horizon.
Patients hospitalised in a hypothetical 10-bed intensive care unit (ICU in a high-income country.
Base case scenario compared with (1) universal strategies (eg, improvement of hand hygiene (HH) among healthcare workers, antibiotic stewardship), (2) targeted strategies (eg, screening of patient for ESBL-PE at ICU admission and contact precautions or cohorting of carriers) and (3) mixed strategies (eg, targeted approaches combined with antibiotic stewardship).
Cases of ESBL-PE transmission, infections, cost of intervention, cost of infections, incremental cost per infection avoided.
In the base case scenario, 15 transmissions and five infections due to ESBL-PE occurred per 100 ICU admissions, representing a mean cost of €94 792. All control strategies improved health outcomes and reduced costs associated with ESBL-PE infections. The overall costs (cost of intervention and infections) were the lowest for HH compliance improvement from 55%/60% before/after contact with a patient to 80%/80%.
Improved compliance with HH was the most cost-saving strategy to prevent the transmission of ESBL-PE. Antibiotic stewardship was not cost-effective. However, adding antibiotic restriction strategy to HH or screening and cohorting strategies slightly improved their effectiveness and may be worthy of consideration by decision-makers.
为了限制医院中多重耐药菌的传播,已经采用了多种控制策略。然而,这些策略的实施成本高昂,并且对于控制产超广谱β-内酰胺酶肠杆菌科(ESBL-PE)传播的干预措施的有效性存在争议。在这里,我们旨在评估预防 ESBL-PE 传播和感染的基于医院的策略的成本效益。
基于动态、随机传播模型的 1 年时间框架内的成本效益分析。
假设在一个高收入国家的 10 张病床的重症监护病房(ICU)住院的患者。
基础案例情景与(1)普遍策略(例如,提高医护人员的手卫生(HH),抗生素管理),(2)靶向策略(例如,在 ICU 入院时对患者进行 ESBL-PE 筛查和接触预防或对携带者进行群体隔离)和(3)混合策略(例如,靶向方法与抗生素管理相结合)进行比较。
ESBL-PE 传播、感染、干预成本、感染成本、每例感染避免的增量成本。
在基础案例情景中,每 100 例 ICU 入院发生 15 例 ESBL-PE 传播和 5 例感染,代表平均成本为 94792 欧元。所有控制策略都改善了健康结果,并降低了与 ESBL-PE 感染相关的成本。总体成本(干预和感染成本)最低的是接触患者前后从 55%/60%提高到 80%/80%的 HH 合规性提高。
提高 HH 的合规性是预防 ESBL-PE 传播的最具成本效益的策略。抗生素管理并不具有成本效益。然而,将抗生素限制策略添加到 HH 或筛查和群体隔离策略中,略微提高了它们的效果,可能值得决策者考虑。