BACKGROUND: Although prior randomized trials have demonstrated that procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy effectively reduces antibiotic use in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), uncertainties remain regarding use of procalcitonin protocols in practice. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin protocols in CAP. DESIGN: Decision analysis using published observational and clinical trial data, with variation of all parameter values in sensitivity analyses. PATIENTS: Hypothetical patient cohorts who were hospitalized for CAP. INTERVENTIONS: Procalcitonin protocols vs. usual care. MAIN MEASURES: Costs and cost per quality adjusted life year gained. KEY RESULTS: When no differences in clinical outcomes were assumed, consistent with clinical trials and observational data, procalcitonin protocols cost $10-$54 more per patient than usual care in CAP patients. Under these assumptions, results were most sensitive to variations in: antibiotic cost, the likelihood that antibiotic therapy was initiated less frequently or over shorter durations, and the likelihood that physicians were nonadherent to procalcitonin protocols. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses, incorporating procalcitonin protocol-related changes in quality of life, found that protocol use was unlikely to be economically reasonable if physician protocol nonadherence was high, as observational study data suggest. However, procalcitonin protocols were favored if they decreased hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Procalcitonin protocol use in hospitalized CAP patients, although promising, lacks physician nonadherence and resource use data in routine care settings, which are needed to evaluate its potential role in patient care.
BACKGROUND: Although prior randomized trials have demonstrated that procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy effectively reduces antibiotic use in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), uncertainties remain regarding use of procalcitonin protocols in practice. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of procalcitonin protocols in CAP. DESIGN: Decision analysis using published observational and clinical trial data, with variation of all parameter values in sensitivity analyses. PATIENTS: Hypothetical patient cohorts who were hospitalized for CAP. INTERVENTIONS: Procalcitonin protocols vs. usual care. MAIN MEASURES: Costs and cost per quality adjusted life year gained. KEY RESULTS: When no differences in clinical outcomes were assumed, consistent with clinical trials and observational data, procalcitonin protocols cost $10-$54 more per patient than usual care in CAP patients. Under these assumptions, results were most sensitive to variations in: antibiotic cost, the likelihood that antibiotic therapy was initiated less frequently or over shorter durations, and the likelihood that physicians were nonadherent to procalcitonin protocols. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses, incorporating procalcitonin protocol-related changes in quality of life, found that protocol use was unlikely to be economically reasonable if physician protocol nonadherence was high, as observational study data suggest. However, procalcitonin protocols were favored if they decreased hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Procalcitonin protocol use in hospitalized CAP patients, although promising, lacks physician nonadherence and resource use data in routine care settings, which are needed to evaluate its potential role in patient care.
Authors: M J Fine; H M Pratt; D S Obrosky; J R Lave; L J McIntosh; D E Singer; C M Coley; W N Kapoor Journal: Am J Med Date: 2000-10-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Werner C Albrich; Frank Dusemund; Birgit Bucher; Stefan Meyer; Robert Thomann; Felix Kühn; Stefano Bassetti; Martin Sprenger; Esther Bachli; Thomas Sigrist; Martin Schwietert; Devendra Amin; Pierre Hausfater; Eric Carre; Jacques Gaillat; Philipp Schuetz; Katharina Regez; Rita Bossart; Ursula Schild; Beat Mueller Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-05-14
Authors: Constantinos I Michaelidis; Richard K Zimmerman; Mary Patricia Nowalk; Michael J Fine; Kenneth J Smith Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Smita Pakhale; Sunita Mulpuru; Theo J M Verheij; Michael M Kochen; Gernot G U Rohde; Lise M Bjerre Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-10-09
Authors: Janne C Mewes; Michael S Pulia; Michael K Mansour; Michael R Broyles; H Bryant Nguyen; Lotte M Steuten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yuri van der Does; Maarten Limper; Stephanie C E Schuit; Marten J Poley; Joost van Rosmalen; Christian Ramakers; Peter Patka; Eric C M van Gorp; Pleunie P M Rood Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2016-04-06