ArticleBMJ open2021
Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) versus inpatient care in the UK: a health economic assessment for six key diagnoses.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacists in OPAT: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2026Pooled it
- Practice guidelines for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in Germany.Infection · 2025Guideline
- Implementation of a Pharmacist-Driven Vancomycin Area Under the Concentration-Time Curve Monitoring Program Using Bayesian Modeling in Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Trial
- Comparing Self-Administered Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (S-OPAT) with Alternative Delivery Models: Risk Factors for Treatment Failure and Complications in a UK Cohort.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of dalbavancin versus standard therapy for non-severe skin and soft-tissue infections as well as bone and joint infections: a retrospective observational study.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Preparation of B. Braun EasypumpJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy in a Setting with High Prevalence of Multidrug Resistance: Challenges, Opportunities, and Stewardship Considerations.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cost savings of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy using a digital infusion pump.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Patients referred to but not taken on to an outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) service: the impact of infection specialist advice on the assessment and clinical outcomes.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Challenges and drivers in the implementation of current practices in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: an international survey.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- 2026 Updated good practice recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in adults and children in the UK.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- Parenteral Vancomycin in the Treatment of MRSA-Associated Diabetic Foot Infections: An Unnecessary Risk.The international journal of lower extremity wounds · 2026Review
- [Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: challenges and opportunities].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Continuous infusion OPAT via elastomeric pumps: effectiveness, safety, and cost-saving potential in a real-world Italian cohort.Infection · 2026Article
- Exploring the opportunity for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and precision dose antimicrobials in an outpatient antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) service: a prospective observational study.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2026Observational
- Successful outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy with rezafungin for chronic pulmonary aspergillosis: a case report and health economic assessment.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2025Article
- Experience of use of dalbavancin for the treatment of unlicensed indications in a UK tertiary infectious diseases setting.Infection · 2025Article
- Preserving Health Beyond Infection Control: Frailty, Weight, and Cognition in OPAT Patients.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Piperacillin/Tazobactam Treatment in Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) Programs: Comparison of Two Models of Opat Care.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy in a Tertiary Hospital in France: A Description of Service Models and Costs.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare costs associated with different models of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) delivery with costs of inpatient (IP) care across key infection groups managed via OPAT in the UK.
designA cost-minimisation design was used due to evidence of similarities in patient and treatment outcomes between OPAT and IP care. A bottom-up approach was undertaken for the evaluation of OPAT associated costs. The British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy National Outcomes Registry System was used to determine key infection diagnoses, mean duration of treatment and most frequent antibiotics used.
settingSeveral OPAT delivery settings were considered and compared with IP care.
interventionsOPAT models considered were OP clinic model, nurse home visits, self (or carer)-administration by a bolus intravenous, self-administration by a commercially prefilled elastomeric device, continuous intravenous infusion of piperacillin with tazobactam or flucloxacillin with elastomeric device as OP once daily and, specifically for bone and joint and diabetic foot infections, complex outpatient oral antibiotic therapies.
resultsBase case and a range of scenario results showed all evaluated OPAT service delivery models to be less costly than IP stay of equivalent duration. The extent of savings varied by OPAT healthcare delivery models. Estimated OPAT costs as a proportion of IP costs were estimated at 0.23-0.53 (skin and soft-tissue infections), 0.34-0.46 (complex urinary tract infections), 0.23-0.51 (orthopaedic infections), 0.24-0.42 (diabetic foot infections) 0.40-0.56 (exacerbations of bronchiectasis) and 0.25-0.42 (intra-abdominal infections). Partial or full complex oral antibiotic therapies in orthopaedic or diabetic foot infections costs were estimated to be 0.13-0.26 of IP costs. Main OPAT costs were associated with staff time and antimicrobial medications.
conclusionsOPAT is a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources for the treatment of a range of infections in the UK in patients who can be safely managed in a non-IP setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.