IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v23y2022i7d10.1007_s10198-021-01419-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Probabilistic microsimulation to examine the cost-effectiveness of hospital admission screening strategies for carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Sarkis Manoukian

    (Glasgow Caledonian University)

  • Sally Stewart

    (Glasgow Caledonian University)

  • Stephanie J. Dancer

    (Edinburgh Napier University)

  • Helen Mason

    (Glasgow Caledonian University)

  • Nicholas Graves

    (Duke-NUS Medical School)

  • Chris Robertson

    (University of Strathclyde)

  • Alistair Leonard

    (NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde)

  • Sharon Kennedy

    (Public Health Scotland)

  • Kim Kavanagh

    (University of Strathclyde)

  • Benjamin Parcell

    (Ninewells Hospital and School of Medicine)

  • Jacqui Reilly

    (Glasgow Caledonian University)

Abstract

Background Antimicrobial resistance has been recognised as a global threat with carbapenemase- producing-Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) as a prime example. CPE has similarities to COVID-19 where asymptomatic patients may be colonised representing a source for onward transmission. There are limited treatment options for CPE infection leading to poor outcomes and increased costs. Admission screening can prevent cross-transmission by pre-emptively isolating colonised patients. Objective We assess the relative cost-effectiveness of screening programmes compared with no- screening. Methods A microsimulation parameterised with NHS Scotland date was used to model scenarios of the prevalence of CPE colonised patients on admission. Screening strategies were (a) two-step screening involving a clinical risk assessment (CRA) checklist followed by microbiological testing of high-risk patients; and (b) universal screening. Strategies were considered with either culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. All costs were reported in 2019 UK pounds with a healthcare system perspective. Results In the low prevalence scenario, no screening had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness. Among screening strategies, the two CRA screening options were the most likely to be cost-effective. Screening was more likely to be cost-effective than no screening in the prevalence of 1 CPE colonised in 500 admitted patients or more. There was substantial uncertainty with the probabilities rarely exceeding 40% and similar results between strategies. Screening reduced non-isolated bed-days and CPE colonisation. The cost of screening was low in relation to total costs. Conclusion The specificity of the CRA checklist was the parameter with the highest impact on the cost-effectiveness. Further primary data collection is needed to build models with less uncertainty in the parameters.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarkis Manoukian & Sally Stewart & Stephanie J. Dancer & Helen Mason & Nicholas Graves & Chris Robertson & Alistair Leonard & Sharon Kennedy & Kim Kavanagh & Benjamin Parcell & Jacqui Reilly, 2022. "Probabilistic microsimulation to examine the cost-effectiveness of hospital admission screening strategies for carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in the United Kingdom," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(7), pages 1173-1185, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01419-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01419-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-021-01419-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-021-01419-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:7:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01419-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.