Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jun;36(6):1047-1055.
doi: 10.1007/s10096-016-2890-7. Epub 2017 Jan 11.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal screening for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in hospital inpatients

Affiliations

Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal screening for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in hospital inpatients

L Lapointe-Shaw et al. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017 Jun.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening all hospital inpatients for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) at the time of hospital admission, compared to not screening, from a US hospital perspective. We used a linked transmission/Markov model to compare outcomes for a typical hospitalized medical patient, from a community with a colonization prevalence of 0.05%. Outcomes were number of colonized patients, CPE-related clinical infections and deaths, expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of parameter uncertainty, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. Screening prevented six CPE colonization cases per 1000 patients (1/1000 colonized with screening, 7/1000 without screening), over half of all symptomatic CPE infections (2/10,000 symptomatic with screening, 5/10,000 symptomatic without screening), and nearly half of all CPE-related deaths (8/100,000 deaths with screening, 15/100,000 deaths without screening). Screening accrued 0.0009 additional QALYs and cost an additional $24.68, compared to not screening, and was cost-effective (ICER $26,283 per QALY gained). Our results were sensitive to uncertainty in prevalence and the number of secondary colonizations per colonized patient. Screening was not cost-effective at a prevalence below 0.015% or if transmission to fewer than 0.9 new patients occurred for each colonized patient. At prevalence levels above 0.3%, screening was cost-saving compared to not screening. Screening inpatients for CPE carriage is likely cost-effective, and may be cost-saving, depending on the local prevalence of carriage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005 Feb;49(2):798-800 - PubMed
    1. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;29(10):966-8 - PubMed
    1. Arch Intern Med. 1996 Jul 22;156(14):1565-71 - PubMed
    1. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009 May;30(5):447-52 - PubMed
    1. Am J Infect Control. 2014 Apr;42(4):448-9 - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources