M Daniel Hatch1, Stephen D Daniels1, Kimberly M Glerum1, Laurence D Higgins2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: ldhiggins@partners.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing methicillin resistance and recognition of Propionibacterium acnes as a cause of infection in shoulder arthroplasty has led to the adoption of local vancomycin powder application as a more effective method to prevent expensive periprosthetic infections. However, no study has analyzed the cost effectiveness of vancomycin powder for preventing infection after shoulder replacement. METHODS: Cost data for infection-related care of 16 patients treated for deep periprosthetic shoulder infection was collected from our institution for the break-even analysis. An equation was developed and applied to the data to determine how effective vancomycin powder would need to be at reducing a baseline infection rate to make prophylactic use cost effective. RESULTS: The efficacy of vancomycin (absolute risk reduction [ARR]) was evaluated at different unit costs, baseline infection rates, and average costs of treating infection. We determined vancomycin to be cost effective if the initial infection rate decreased by 0.04% (ARR). Using the current costs of vancomycin reported in the literature (range: $2.50/1000 mg to $44/1000 mg), we determined vancomycin to be cost effective with an ARR range of 0.01% at a cost of $2.50/1000 mg to 0.19% at $44/1000 mg. Baseline infection rate does not influence the ARR obtained at any specific cost of vancomycin or the cost of treating infection. CONCLUSIONS: We have derived and used a break-even equation to assess efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics during shoulder surgery. We further demonstrated the prophylactic administration of local vancomycin powder during shoulder arthroplasty to be a highly cost-effective practice.
BACKGROUND: Increasing methicillin resistance and recognition of Propionibacterium acnes as a cause of infection in shoulder arthroplasty has led to the adoption of local vancomycin powder application as a more effective method to prevent expensive periprosthetic infections. However, no study has analyzed the cost effectiveness of vancomycin powder for preventing infection after shoulder replacement. METHODS: Cost data for infection-related care of 16 patients treated for deep periprosthetic shoulder infection was collected from our institution for the break-even analysis. An equation was developed and applied to the data to determine how effective vancomycin powder would need to be at reducing a baseline infection rate to make prophylactic use cost effective. RESULTS: The efficacy of vancomycin (absolute risk reduction [ARR]) was evaluated at different unit costs, baseline infection rates, and average costs of treating infection. We determined vancomycin to be cost effective if the initial infection rate decreased by 0.04% (ARR). Using the current costs of vancomycin reported in the literature (range: $2.50/1000 mg to $44/1000 mg), we determined vancomycin to be cost effective with an ARR range of 0.01% at a cost of $2.50/1000 mg to 0.19% at $44/1000 mg. Baseline infection rate does not influence the ARR obtained at any specific cost of vancomycin or the cost of treating infection. CONCLUSIONS: We have derived and used a break-even equation to assess efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics during shoulder surgery. We further demonstrated the prophylactic administration of local vancomycin powder during shoulder arthroplasty to be a highly cost-effective practice.
Authors: Matthew D Budge; John A Koch; Jonathan B Mandell; Alex J Cappellini; Sara Orr; Samik Patel; Dongzhu Ma; Olivia Nourie; Kimberly M Brothers; Kenneth L Urish Journal: Antimicrob Comb Devices (2019) Date: 2020-11-23
Authors: David A Kolin; Michael A Moverman; Mariano E Menendez; Nicholas R Pagani; Richard N Puzzitiello; Joseph J Kavolus Journal: J Orthop Date: 2021-07-13
Authors: Yehuda E Kerbel; Gregory J Kirchner; Anisha Reddy Sunkerneni; Alexander M Lieber; Vincent M Moretti; Amrit S Khalsa; Marc J Levine Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2019-11-12