ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2025
Quantifying cost savings from outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy programme: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Continuous Intravenous Acyclovir as Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy for HSV and VZV Neurological Infections: A Case Series With Pharmacokinetic and Cost Evaluation, and Review of Literature.Reviews in medical virology · 2026Review
- 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
- Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy in Asia: Evolution, Models, and Challenges over the Past Decade-A Narrative Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Challenges and drivers in the implementation of current practices in outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: an international survey.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Article
- Article
- 2026 Updated good practice recommendations for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) in adults and children in the UK.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2026Review
- Real-World Comparison of Intravenous vs. Oral Antimicrobial Therapy for Bone and Joint Infections.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Continuous infusion OPAT via elastomeric pumps: effectiveness, safety, and cost-saving potential in a real-world Italian cohort.Infection · 2026Article
- [Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: challenges and opportunities].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Cost avoidance analysis of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) plan reconciliation for patients enrolled in value-based payment models at an academic hospital.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) programme was introduced to reduce costs and enhance the quality of life for patients requiring prolonged treatment with parenteral antimicrobials. However, given the escalating inflation, the extent of current cost savings achieved through OPAT programmes remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis employ a cost-minimization analysis to quantify the cost savings from OPAT compared to inpatient treatment. Methods: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing the costs of parenteral antimicrobial treatment without restriction on study design and year. Two reviewers conducted eligibility screening and cross-validated the extracted data. The cost data were adjusted and inflated to 2023 US dollars. A random effect model calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024584201). Results: Twenty studies involving 2790 patients were included in the systematic review, and six studies (three randomized controlled trials and three cohorts) were subject to metanalysis. Collectively, these included 560 patients who received treatment in outpatient settings, and 491 treated as inpatients. The cost of parenteral antimicrobial per episode of care was lower in the outpatient settings MD -$5436.73 (95% CI: -$9589.24 to -$1284.22, I² = 96%; Conclusions: OPAT significantly saves costs compared to inpatient treatment. We recommend comprehensive analysis of treatment costs from all perspectives, including various cost types.
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.