Trial reportBMJ open2025
The cost-effectiveness of penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP): a decision analysis.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) versus usual care within the NHS.
designA decision tree analysis over a 5-year time-period, informed by a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of PAAP and systematic review. Value of information analysis was also conducted to estimate the value of conducting a new trial. DATA SOURCES: Model inputs were informed by the ALABAMA RCT participants included in the primary analysis, 811 adults with penicillin allergy labels and recent antibiotic prescriptions, and data from published literature.
interventionsParticipants in the ALABAMA trial included in the primary analysis: PAAP (n=401) and usual care (n=410). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs are presented in GBP (£) at 2022-2023 prices, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), the probability of cost-effectiveness at the £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY threshold, and the cost effectiveness of a new follow-on trial.
resultsPAAP had incremental costs of £-83 (probability of cost saving 47.5%) and incremental QALYs of 0.036 (probability of positive benefits 47.5%). The INMBs (probability of cost-effectiveness) were £806 (48%) and £1167 (48%) under the decision thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY, respectively. PAAP was more cost-effective among females, people aged >65 years, and more frequent antibiotic users. A new follow-on trial involving 1267 participants was estimated to cost £2.4 million and, by reducing uncertainty in the evidence, would avoid £19.6 million in costs of incorrect management decisions for eligible patients over the next 10 years.
conclusionThe PAAP was considered cost-effective, but significant uncertainty remained. Future trials with adequate power and longer follow-up are needed to determine the most cost-effective models for penicillin allergy testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20579216.
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.