Cost-effectiveness of universal MRSA screening on admission to surgery

Policy-makers have recommended universal screening to reduce nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. Risk profiling of MRSA carriers and rapid PCR tests are now available, yet cost-effectiveness data are limited. The present study assessed the cost-effectiveness of u...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical microbiology and infection 2010-12, Vol.16 (12), p.1747-1753
Hauptverfasser: Murthy, A., De Angelis, G., Pittet, D., Schrenzel, J., Uckay, I., Harbarth, S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1753
container_issue 12
container_start_page 1747
container_title Clinical microbiology and infection
container_volume 16
creator Murthy, A.
De Angelis, G.
Pittet, D.
Schrenzel, J.
Uckay, I.
Harbarth, S.
description Policy-makers have recommended universal screening to reduce nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. Risk profiling of MRSA carriers and rapid PCR tests are now available, yet cost-effectiveness data are limited. The present study assessed the cost-effectiveness of universal PCR screening on admission to surgery. A decision analysis model from the hospital perspective compared costs and the probability of any MRSA infection across three strategies: (i) PCR screening; (ii) screening for risk factors (prior hospitalization or antibiotic use) combined with pre-emptive isolation and contact precautions pending chromogenic agar results; and (iii) no screening. Clinical data were taken from studies at a Swiss teaching hospital as well as from published literature. Costs were derived from hospital accounting systems. Compared to no screening, the PCR strategy resulted in higher costs (CHF 10 503 vs. 10 358) but a lower infection probability (0.0041 vs. 0.0088), producing a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF 30 784 per MRSA infection avoided. The risk factor strategy was more costly yet less effective than PCR, although, after varying epidemiologic inputs, the costs and effects of both screening strategies were similar. Sensitivity analyses suggested that on-admission prevalence of MRSA carriage predicts cost-effectiveness, alongside the probability of cross-transmission, and the costs of MRSA infection, screening and contact precautions. Although reducing the risk of MRSA infection, universal PCR screening is not strongly costeffective at our centre. However, local epidemiology plays a critical role. Settings with a higher prevalence of MRSA colonization may find universal screening cost-effective and, in some cases, cost-saving.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03220.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_787045721</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1198743X14605772</els_id><sourcerecordid>787045721</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5050-eddfc5ceaa00bb440027633a64c7d55ad16ebc6a0399e3eb34e811fee11549e33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkTtPwzAUhS0EoqXwF1AkBqYUO7bzGBhKRAGpFRIPic1ynJvKVRoXuyntv8ehhYEFvPj6-pzro88IBQQPiV9X8yFhcRbiOCPDCPsuplGEh5sD1P-5OPQ1ydIwYfSth06cm2OMI0rZMepFmFISp6yPxrlxqxCqCtRKr6EB5wJTBW3jD9bJOpg-PY8CpyxAo5tZYJpAlgvtnPbVygSutTOw21N0VMnawdl-H6DX8e1Lfh9OHu8e8tEkVBxzHEJZVoorkBLjomDMB0piSmXMVFJyLksSQ6FiiWmWAYWCMkgJqQAI4cx36ABd7uYurXlvwa2Ez6KgrmUDpnUiSRPMeBIRr7z4pZyb1jY-nCA8ynhCWRp7VbpTKWucs1CJpdULabeCYNGhFnPRERUdUdGhFl-oxcZbz_cPtMUCyh_jN1svuN4JPnQN238PFvlk2lXef7Pzgwe61mCFUxoaBaW2_rdEafTfKT8B5JehOg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1529573486</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost-effectiveness of universal MRSA screening on admission to surgery</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Murthy, A. ; De Angelis, G. ; Pittet, D. ; Schrenzel, J. ; Uckay, I. ; Harbarth, S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Murthy, A. ; De Angelis, G. ; Pittet, D. ; Schrenzel, J. ; Uckay, I. ; Harbarth, S.</creatorcontrib><description>Policy-makers have recommended universal screening to reduce nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. Risk profiling of MRSA carriers and rapid PCR tests are now available, yet cost-effectiveness data are limited. The present study assessed the cost-effectiveness of universal PCR screening on admission to surgery. A decision analysis model from the hospital perspective compared costs and the probability of any MRSA infection across three strategies: (i) PCR screening; (ii) screening for risk factors (prior hospitalization or antibiotic use) combined with pre-emptive isolation and contact precautions pending chromogenic agar results; and (iii) no screening. Clinical data were taken from studies at a Swiss teaching hospital as well as from published literature. Costs were derived from hospital accounting systems. Compared to no screening, the PCR strategy resulted in higher costs (CHF 10 503 vs. 10 358) but a lower infection probability (0.0041 vs. 0.0088), producing a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF 30 784 per MRSA infection avoided. The risk factor strategy was more costly yet less effective than PCR, although, after varying epidemiologic inputs, the costs and effects of both screening strategies were similar. Sensitivity analyses suggested that on-admission prevalence of MRSA carriage predicts cost-effectiveness, alongside the probability of cross-transmission, and the costs of MRSA infection, screening and contact precautions. Although reducing the risk of MRSA infection, universal PCR screening is not strongly costeffective at our centre. However, local epidemiology plays a critical role. Settings with a higher prevalence of MRSA colonization may find universal screening cost-effective and, in some cases, cost-saving.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1198-743X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-0691</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03220.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20331684</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Carrier State - diagnosis ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Costs ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Cross Infection - diagnosis ; Cross Infection - economics ; Cross Infection - prevention &amp; control ; Economics ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; infection ; Infection Control - economics ; Infection Control - methods ; Mass Screening - economics ; methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus - isolation &amp; purification ; Policy ; Polymerase Chain Reaction - economics ; prevention ; Risk Factors ; Staphylococcal Infections - diagnosis ; Staphylococcal Infections - economics ; Staphylococcus infections ; surgery ; Surgical Procedures, Operative</subject><ispartof>Clinical microbiology and infection, 2010-12, Vol.16 (12), p.1747-1753</ispartof><rights>2010 European Society of Clinical Infectious Diseases</rights><rights>2010 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2010 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases</rights><rights>2010 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2010 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5050-eddfc5ceaa00bb440027633a64c7d55ad16ebc6a0399e3eb34e811fee11549e33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5050-eddfc5ceaa00bb440027633a64c7d55ad16ebc6a0399e3eb34e811fee11549e33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1469-0691.2010.03220.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1469-0691.2010.03220.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20331684$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Murthy, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Angelis, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pittet, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schrenzel, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uckay, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harbarth, S.</creatorcontrib><title>Cost-effectiveness of universal MRSA screening on admission to surgery</title><title>Clinical microbiology and infection</title><addtitle>Clin Microbiol Infect</addtitle><description>Policy-makers have recommended universal screening to reduce nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. Risk profiling of MRSA carriers and rapid PCR tests are now available, yet cost-effectiveness data are limited. The present study assessed the cost-effectiveness of universal PCR screening on admission to surgery. A decision analysis model from the hospital perspective compared costs and the probability of any MRSA infection across three strategies: (i) PCR screening; (ii) screening for risk factors (prior hospitalization or antibiotic use) combined with pre-emptive isolation and contact precautions pending chromogenic agar results; and (iii) no screening. Clinical data were taken from studies at a Swiss teaching hospital as well as from published literature. Costs were derived from hospital accounting systems. Compared to no screening, the PCR strategy resulted in higher costs (CHF 10 503 vs. 10 358) but a lower infection probability (0.0041 vs. 0.0088), producing a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF 30 784 per MRSA infection avoided. The risk factor strategy was more costly yet less effective than PCR, although, after varying epidemiologic inputs, the costs and effects of both screening strategies were similar. Sensitivity analyses suggested that on-admission prevalence of MRSA carriage predicts cost-effectiveness, alongside the probability of cross-transmission, and the costs of MRSA infection, screening and contact precautions. Although reducing the risk of MRSA infection, universal PCR screening is not strongly costeffective at our centre. However, local epidemiology plays a critical role. Settings with a higher prevalence of MRSA colonization may find universal screening cost-effective and, in some cases, cost-saving.</description><subject>Carrier State - diagnosis</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Costs and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>Cross Infection - diagnosis</subject><subject>Cross Infection - economics</subject><subject>Cross Infection - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>infection</subject><subject>Infection Control - economics</subject><subject>Infection Control - methods</subject><subject>Mass Screening - economics</subject><subject>methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus</subject><subject>Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus - isolation &amp; purification</subject><subject>Policy</subject><subject>Polymerase Chain Reaction - economics</subject><subject>prevention</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Staphylococcal Infections - diagnosis</subject><subject>Staphylococcal Infections - economics</subject><subject>Staphylococcus infections</subject><subject>surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Procedures, Operative</subject><issn>1198-743X</issn><issn>1469-0691</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkTtPwzAUhS0EoqXwF1AkBqYUO7bzGBhKRAGpFRIPic1ynJvKVRoXuyntv8ehhYEFvPj6-pzro88IBQQPiV9X8yFhcRbiOCPDCPsuplGEh5sD1P-5OPQ1ydIwYfSth06cm2OMI0rZMepFmFISp6yPxrlxqxCqCtRKr6EB5wJTBW3jD9bJOpg-PY8CpyxAo5tZYJpAlgvtnPbVygSutTOw21N0VMnawdl-H6DX8e1Lfh9OHu8e8tEkVBxzHEJZVoorkBLjomDMB0piSmXMVFJyLksSQ6FiiWmWAYWCMkgJqQAI4cx36ABd7uYurXlvwa2Ez6KgrmUDpnUiSRPMeBIRr7z4pZyb1jY-nCA8ynhCWRp7VbpTKWucs1CJpdULabeCYNGhFnPRERUdUdGhFl-oxcZbz_cPtMUCyh_jN1svuN4JPnQN238PFvlk2lXef7Pzgwe61mCFUxoaBaW2_rdEafTfKT8B5JehOg</recordid><startdate>201012</startdate><enddate>201012</enddate><creator>Murthy, A.</creator><creator>De Angelis, G.</creator><creator>Pittet, D.</creator><creator>Schrenzel, J.</creator><creator>Uckay, I.</creator><creator>Harbarth, S.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201012</creationdate><title>Cost-effectiveness of universal MRSA screening on admission to surgery</title><author>Murthy, A. ; De Angelis, G. ; Pittet, D. ; Schrenzel, J. ; Uckay, I. ; Harbarth, S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5050-eddfc5ceaa00bb440027633a64c7d55ad16ebc6a0399e3eb34e811fee11549e33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Carrier State - diagnosis</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Costs and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>Cross Infection - diagnosis</topic><topic>Cross Infection - economics</topic><topic>Cross Infection - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>infection</topic><topic>Infection Control - economics</topic><topic>Infection Control - methods</topic><topic>Mass Screening - economics</topic><topic>methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus</topic><topic>Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus - isolation &amp; purification</topic><topic>Policy</topic><topic>Polymerase Chain Reaction - economics</topic><topic>prevention</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Staphylococcal Infections - diagnosis</topic><topic>Staphylococcal Infections - economics</topic><topic>Staphylococcus infections</topic><topic>surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Procedures, Operative</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Murthy, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Angelis, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pittet, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schrenzel, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uckay, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harbarth, S.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical microbiology and infection</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Murthy, A.</au><au>De Angelis, G.</au><au>Pittet, D.</au><au>Schrenzel, J.</au><au>Uckay, I.</au><au>Harbarth, S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost-effectiveness of universal MRSA screening on admission to surgery</atitle><jtitle>Clinical microbiology and infection</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Microbiol Infect</addtitle><date>2010-12</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1747</spage><epage>1753</epage><pages>1747-1753</pages><issn>1198-743X</issn><eissn>1469-0691</eissn><abstract>Policy-makers have recommended universal screening to reduce nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. Risk profiling of MRSA carriers and rapid PCR tests are now available, yet cost-effectiveness data are limited. The present study assessed the cost-effectiveness of universal PCR screening on admission to surgery. A decision analysis model from the hospital perspective compared costs and the probability of any MRSA infection across three strategies: (i) PCR screening; (ii) screening for risk factors (prior hospitalization or antibiotic use) combined with pre-emptive isolation and contact precautions pending chromogenic agar results; and (iii) no screening. Clinical data were taken from studies at a Swiss teaching hospital as well as from published literature. Costs were derived from hospital accounting systems. Compared to no screening, the PCR strategy resulted in higher costs (CHF 10 503 vs. 10 358) but a lower infection probability (0.0041 vs. 0.0088), producing a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF 30 784 per MRSA infection avoided. The risk factor strategy was more costly yet less effective than PCR, although, after varying epidemiologic inputs, the costs and effects of both screening strategies were similar. Sensitivity analyses suggested that on-admission prevalence of MRSA carriage predicts cost-effectiveness, alongside the probability of cross-transmission, and the costs of MRSA infection, screening and contact precautions. Although reducing the risk of MRSA infection, universal PCR screening is not strongly costeffective at our centre. However, local epidemiology plays a critical role. Settings with a higher prevalence of MRSA colonization may find universal screening cost-effective and, in some cases, cost-saving.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>20331684</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03220.x</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1198-743X
ispartof Clinical microbiology and infection, 2010-12, Vol.16 (12), p.1747-1753
issn 1198-743X
1469-0691
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_787045721
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Carrier State - diagnosis
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs
Costs and Cost Analysis
Cross Infection - diagnosis
Cross Infection - economics
Cross Infection - prevention & control
Economics
Hospitalization
Humans
infection
Infection Control - economics
Infection Control - methods
Mass Screening - economics
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus - isolation & purification
Policy
Polymerase Chain Reaction - economics
prevention
Risk Factors
Staphylococcal Infections - diagnosis
Staphylococcal Infections - economics
Staphylococcus infections
surgery
Surgical Procedures, Operative
title Cost-effectiveness of universal MRSA screening on admission to surgery
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T18%3A45%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost-effectiveness%20of%20universal%20MRSA%20screening%20on%20admission%20to%20surgery&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20microbiology%20and%20infection&rft.au=Murthy,%20A.&rft.date=2010-12&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1747&rft.epage=1753&rft.pages=1747-1753&rft.issn=1198-743X&rft.eissn=1469-0691&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2010.03220.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E787045721%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1529573486&rft_id=info:pmid/20331684&rft_els_id=S1198743X14605772&rfr_iscdi=true