Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28505278›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2017

Cost-effectiveness of outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy: a simulation modelling approach.

A Vargas-Palacios, D M Meads, M Twiddy, C Czoski Murray, C Hulme, E D Mitchell, A Gregson, P Stanley, J Minton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

A Vargas-PalaciosAcademic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
D M MeadsAcademic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
M TwiddyLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
C Czoski MurrayAcademic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
C HulmeAcademic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
E D MitchellLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
A GregsonLeeds Community Healthcare Trust, Leeds, UK.
P StanleyBradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
J MintonLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 11/2003/60
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: In the UK, patients who require intravenous antimicrobial (IVA) treatment may receive this in the community through outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) services. Services include: IVA administration at a hospital outpatient clinic (HO); IVA administration at home by a general nurse (GN) or a specialist nurse (SN); or patient self-administered (SA) IVA administration following training. There is uncertainty regarding which OPAT services represent value for money; this study aimed to estimate their cost-effectiveness. Methods: A cost-effectiveness decision-analytic model was developed using a simulation technique utilizing data from hospital records and a systematic review of the literature. The model estimates cost per QALY gained from the National Health Service (NHS) perspective for short- and long-term treatment of infections and service combinations across these. Results: In short-term treatments, HO was estimated as the most effective (0.7239 QALYs), but at the highest cost (£973). SN was the least costly (£710), producing 0.7228 QALYs. The combination between SN and HO was estimated to produce 0.7235 QALYs at a cost of £841. For long-term treatments, SN was the most effective (0.677 QALYs), costing £2379, while SA was the least costly at £1883, producing 0.666 QALYs. A combination of SA and SN was estimated to produce 0.672 QALYs at a cost of £2128. Conclusions: SN and SA are cost-effective for short- and long-term treatment of infections, while combining services may represent the second-best alternative for OPAT in the UK.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdministration, IntravenousAmbulatory CareAnti-Bacterial AgentsCommunicable DiseasesDrug UtilizationHumansModels, StatisticalUnited KingdomAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID28505278
PMCPMC5890745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.