ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2022
Cost-effectiveness of routine versus indicated antibiotic therapy in the management of severe wasting in children.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prescribing practices in the treatment of wasting: secondary analysis from a randomised trial.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the outpatient management of severe wasting, routine antibiotic therapy is recommended for all children upon admission regardless of whether clinical signs of infection are present. Indicated antibiotic therapy, where antibiotics are provided only upon presentation of clinical signs of infection, may be considered for its potential to allow for more prudent antibiotic use and greater program coverage, reducing the risk of antibiotic resistance as well as costs and logistical burdens associated with treatment. We therefore conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to measure the effects of indicated antibiotic therapy compared to routine antibiotic therapy in terms of incremental cost-per-life-year saved in Niger.
methodsWe used a cohort model to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis from a healthcare system perspective to project and weigh the lifetime discounted costs and effects of indicated antibiotic therapy compared to routine antibiotic therapy in the treatment of uncomplicated severe wasting in children in Niger. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of treatment-related healthcare costs per discounted life-years saved (LYS), and conducted program coverage scenario and sensitivity analyses to assess model uncertainty.
resultsThe ICER for indicated antibiotic therapy compared to routine antibiotic therapy was $8.5/LYS, which is under the cost-effectiveness threshold for Niger. The probability of the indicated strategy being optimal was 76.1% when program coverage was equal to coverage associated with routine therapy but was 100% likely to be optimal in probabilistic sensitivity analysis scenarios where indicated program coverage improved 5 percentage points.
conclusionsIndicated antibiotic therapy likely represents a cost-effective strategy, particularly if indicated treatment can result in expanded coverage. With the risk of increasing antibiotic resistance worldwide, antibiotic stewardship and simplified treatment protocols for severe wasting using indicated antibiotic therapy may represent good value for money in some low risk populations.
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.