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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical microbiology and infection 2010-12, Vol.16 (12), p.1747-1753 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 & 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</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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |