Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34588251›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) versus inpatient care in the UK: a health economic assessment for six key diagnoses.

Maria Dimitrova, Mark Gilchrist, R A Seaton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pharmacists in OPAT: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Preparation of B. Braun EasypumpJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maria DimitrovaScottish Health Technology Group, Healthcare Improvement Scotland, Edinburgh, UK.
Mark GilchristDepartment of Infection/Pharmacy, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
R A SeatonInfectious Diseases, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK andrew.seaton@ggc.scot.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2509-0597
Healthcare Improvement Scotland · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Anti-Infective AgentsOutpatientsAmbulatory CareAnti-Bacterial AgentsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansInpatientsState MedicineUnited KingdomAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective Agentshealth economicshealth services administration & managementinfectious diseasesorganisation of health servicesquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID34588251
PMCPMC8479950
OpenAlexW3203636445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.