Dataset Information

An economic evaluation of two PCR-based respiratory panel assays for patients admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the UK, France and Spain.

ABSTRACT:

Background

On admission to hospital, patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), undergo extensive diagnostic testing. Two high-throughput laboratory-based PCR panels which return a result in 5.5 hours (h) have been developed to test for pathogens commonly associated with upper (Respiratory 1 Panel) and lower (Respiratory 3 Panel) respiratory tract infections (GeneFirst, Oxford). These could replace multiple diagnostic tests currently used.

Methods

An online survey, completed by senior clinicians in the UK, France and Spain, was used to collect data on the diagnostic testing of immunocompetent and immunocompromised adults admitted to hospital with CAP, including the cost of diagnostics. Data were used to inform a cost-comparison model. For each country, the average cost of diagnostic testing per patient was calculated separately for immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients. The model compared three testing strategies with standard of care (SoC). In the Panel 1 strategy, the Respiratory 1 Panel was used for patients that would otherwise have tests which could be replaced by Respiratory 1 Panel, equivalent strategies for Respiratory 3 Panel and for both panels combined were assessed.

Results

In total, 48 surveys were completed (UK = 17; France = 15; Spain = 16). Compared with SoC, the Panel 1 + 3 strategy was most favourable, resulting in cost savings for immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients respectively, of €22.09 (£18.50) and €26.12 (£21.88) in the UK, €99.60 and €108.77 in France and €27.07 and €51.87 in Spain.

Conclusion

In all three countries, the use of these respiratory panels could reduce the average cost of diagnostics used for patients admitted to hospital with CAP.

SUBMITTER: Miners L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10283259 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An economic evaluation of two PCR-based respiratory panel assays for patients admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the UK, France and Spain.

Miners Lisa L Huntington Susie S Lee Nathaniel N Turner Katy M E KME Adams Elisabeth E

BMC pulmonary medicine 20230621 1

<h4>Background</h4>On admission to hospital, patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), undergo extensive diagnostic testing. Two high-throughput laboratory-based PCR panels which return a result in 5.5 hours (h) have been developed to test for pathogens commonly associated with upper (Respiratory 1 Panel) and lower (Respiratory 3 Panel) respiratory tract infections (GeneFirst, Oxford). These could replace multiple diagnostic tests currently used.<h4>Methods</h4>An online survey, complete ...[more]

PMID: 37344852

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceRates of 30-day readmissions following hospitalization for pneumonia are used to publicly report on hospital performance and to set financial penalties for the worst-performing hospitals. However, the rate of avoidable readmission following hospitalization for pneumonia is undefined.ObjectiveTo assess how often 30-day readmissions following hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are avoidable.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study analyzed the results of an independent review of readmissions following hospitalization for CAP within 30 days among patients discharged from 2 large hospitals in France in 2014. Structured clinical records including clinical information (ie, baseline characteristics, physical examination, laboratory findings, x-ray or computed tomography scan findings, discharge plan, and treatments) for both index and readmission stays were independently reviewed by 4 certified board physicians. All consecutive adult patients hospitalized in 2014 with a diagnosis of CAP in our 2 eligible hospitals were eligible. All analyses presented were performed in March 2021.Main outcomes and measuresAvoidable readmission within 30 days of discharge from index hospitalization. The likelihood that a readmission was avoidable was quantified using latent class analysis based on the independent reviews. A readmission was considered avoidable if Bayes posterior probability exceeded 50%.ResultsThe total analytical sample consisted of 1150 index hospital stays with a diagnosis of CAP, which included 651 (56.6%) male patients. The median (IQR) age for all patients was 77.8 (IQR, 62.7-86.4) years. Out of the 1150 index hospital stays, 98 patients (8.5%) died in hospital, and 108 (9.4%) unplanned readmissions were found. Overall, 15 readmissions had a posterior probability of avoidability exceeding 0.50 (13.9% of the 108 unplanned readmissions; 95% CI, 8.0%-21.9%). The median (IQR) delay between the hospital discharge index and readmission was considerably shorter when readmission was deemed avoidable (4 [6-21] days vs 12 [2-18] days; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceOnly a small number of readmissions following hospitalization for CAP were deemed avoidable, comprising less than 10% of all readmissions. Shorter time interval between hospitalization discharge and readmission was associated with avoidability.

Project description:There is broad interest in improved methods to generate robust evidence regarding best practice, especially in settings where patient conditions are heterogenous and require multiple concomitant therapies. Here, we present the rationale and design of a large, international trial that combines features of adaptive platform trials with pragmatic point-of-care trials to determine best treatment strategies for patients admitted to an intensive care unit with severe community-acquired pneumonia. The trial uses a novel design, entitled "a randomized embedded multifactorial adaptive platform." The design has five key features: 1) randomization, allowing robust causal inference; 2) embedding of study procedures into routine care processes, facilitating enrollment, trial efficiency, and generalizability; 3) a multifactorial statistical model comparing multiple interventions across multiple patient subgroups; 4) response-adaptive randomization with preferential assignment to those interventions that appear most favorable; and 5) a platform structured to permit continuous, potentially perpetual enrollment beyond the evaluation of the initial treatments. The trial randomizes patients to multiple interventions within four treatment domains: antibiotics, antiviral therapy for influenza, host immunomodulation with extended macrolide therapy, and alternative corticosteroid regimens, representing 240 treatment regimens. The trial generates estimates of superiority, inferiority, and equivalence between regimens on the primary outcome of 90-day mortality, stratified by presence or absence of concomitant shock and proven or suspected influenza infection. The trial will also compare ventilatory and oxygenation strategies, and has capacity to address additional questions rapidly during pandemic respiratory infections. As of January 2020, REMAP-CAP (Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community-acquired Pneumonia) was approved and enrolling patients in 52 intensive care units in 13 countries on 3 continents. In February, it transitioned into pandemic mode with several design adaptations for coronavirus disease 2019. Lessons learned from the design and conduct of this trial should aid in dissemination of similar platform initiatives in other disease areas.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02735707).

Project description:Vaccine effectiveness is usually determined in randomized controlled trials (RCT) and if effective, additional information, e.g. on cost-effectiveness, is required to allow evidence-based decision making. A prerequisite for proper health economic modelling is the availability of good quality data on health care resources use, health outcomes and quality-of-life (QoL) data. The "Collecting health outcomes and economic data on hospitalized Community Acquired Pneumonia (CHO-CAP)--a prospective cohort study" is executed alongside the Community Acquired Pneumonia Immunization Trial with Adults (CAPiTA trial) to capture health outcomes and economic data of elderly hospitalized with CAP and matched controls without CAP.CAPiTA is a placebo-controlled double-blind RCT evaluating the effectiveness of a 13-valent conjugated pneumococcal vaccine in preventing vaccine-type pneumococcal CAP in 84,496 elderly in the Netherlands. Participants of CAPiTA, who consented and provided information on health status (EQ-5D) and socio-demographic background at the time of vaccination, constitute the source population of CHO-CAP and are eligible for the nested matched cohort study. CHO-CAP patients hospitalized with CAP form the "diseased" cohort and the "non-diseased" cohort consists of unaffected persons (i.e. no CAP). Observations in the diseased cohort and in matched controls from the non-diseased cohort are used to determine excess costs and QoL changes attributable to CAP.Based on an estimated 2,000 CAPiTA participants being hospitalized with CAP and an assumed CHO-CAP participation rate of 30% of all CAPiTA participants (±25,000), 600 CAP episodes are expected among CHO-CAP participants (the "diseased" cohort). For each patient with CAP, two non-diseased CHO-CAP subjects will be selected from the CHO-CAP cohort, with matching for age, gender and EQ-5D baseline-score. Data on healthcare and non-healthcare resources use, quality-of-life (using EQ-5D and SF-36 questionnaires) and selected health outcomes will be collected at 0, 1, 6 and 12 months after hospitalization for CAP.The CHO-CAP study was approved by the Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands.With an expected 600 CAP episodes this study will be one of the biggest prospectively studied cohorts of hospitalized elderly with CAP with regard to resources use and Qol data. Strengths of this study further include collection of out-of-pocket costs of patients and productivity losses of both patients and their caregivers and the follow-up period of up to one year post-discharge. This study is therefore expected to add more in-depth knowledge on the short and longer term outcomes of pneumonia in elderly.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00812084.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Efficient use of resources is fundamental for best use of money among the available and novel treatment options for the management of pneumonia. The objective of this study was to systematically review the economic analysis of management strategies of pneumonia. METHODS:A systematic search was performed using Academic Search Complete, MEDLINE, EconLit, Global health, MEDLINE complete and Embase databases using specific subject headings or key words in May 2018 without restricting publication year. All search results were recorded and any type of economic evaluation for management of CAP was included for detailed review. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used for quality appraisal. RESULTS:Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria; ten studies were trial based, five conducted analysis using model based techniques and the rest of the studies were either based on observational, record review or pre-post intervention studies. Most of the studies conducted cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 15) and compared different combinations of antimicrobials. Most were based on developed countries (n = 17), considered adult age groups (n = 16) and used a provider perspective (n = 14). Nine studies reported dominant alternatives (lower cost with higher benefit). Sensitivity analysis was performed by the majority of studies (n = 15). Fourteen studies were assessed as either being excellent, very good or good quality, with no relationship found between publication year and study quality. Methodological variation, type of microbial used, perspective, costs and outcome measures limit the compatibility among the results of the included studies. CONCLUSION:Economic evaluation of interventions for management of CAP to date supports cost-effectiveness of studied interventions. However, evidence relates largely to antimicrobials choice in older populations in developed countries. Parallel economic evaluation of different management strategies of CAP is recommended for both developed and developing countries to support rigorous and robust comparative economic analysis within health care systems. PROSPERO registration no: CRD42018097174.

Dataset Information

An economic evaluation of two PCR-based respiratory panel assays for patients admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the UK, France and Spain.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

An economic evaluation of two PCR-based respiratory panel assays for patients admitted to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in the UK, France and Spain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets