IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v22y2025i3p373-d1605036.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Chlorhexidine-Coated vs. Standard Peripheral Insertion Central Catheters in Patients with Hematologic Disease: A Health Economic Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jia Xu

    (Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA)

  • Hossein Zare

    (Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA)

  • Herng-Chia Chiu

    (Institute for Hospital Management, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Shenzhen 518055, China)

  • Renan C. Castillo

    (Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21202, USA)

Abstract

Background/Objectives: This study was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of chlorhexidine-coated (AGBA) peripheral insertion central catheters (PICCs) versus standard PICCs for managing catheter-related complications among patients with hematologic disease. Methods: A decision tree health economic model was developed, incorporating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the literature, as well as complication rates and per-patient costs from a randomized controlled trial. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was assessed against established willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to address assumptions and uncertainties. Results: The mean healthcare cost per patient of standard PICCs was RMB 21,987.32 (USD 3242.82, at an average exchange rate of RMB 678.03 = USD 100), affecting 0.68 QALYs in 90 days. The mean healthcare cost per patient of AGBA PICCs was RMB 19,696.23 (USD 2904.92), affecting 0.73 QALYs in 90 days, thus resulting in a saving of RMB 2291.10 (USD 428.44). After the model simulation, standard PICCs resulted in a reduction of 0.05 QALYs. The ICER for AGBA PICCs compared with standard PICCs was consistently centered at RMB 4271.31 (USD 629.96). Conclusions: one-way sensitivity analyses of cost-effectiveness versus WTP confirmed the robustness of the model across various parameter changes, indicating that AGBA PICCs could provide significant healthcare savings over a 1-year period when adopted in routine chemotherapy treatment for patients with hematologic disease.

Suggested Citation

  • Jia Xu & Hossein Zare & Herng-Chia Chiu & Renan C. Castillo, 2025. "Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Chlorhexidine-Coated vs. Standard Peripheral Insertion Central Catheters in Patients with Hematologic Disease: A Health Economic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 22(3), pages 1-10, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:22:y:2025:i:3:p:373-:d:1605036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/3/373/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/3/373/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jijerp:v:22:y:2025:i:3:p:373-:d:1605036. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.