Si Xuan1,2, Kenneth M Zangwill3, Weiyi Ni1,2, Junjie Ma4, Joel W Hay5,6. 1. Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacotherapy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 5. Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. jhay@usc.edu. 6. Department of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. jhay@usc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of single and two-step different diagnostic test strategies for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), including direct and indirect costs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of commonly available diagnostic tests for CDI including nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) alone, glutamate dehydrogenase followed by enzyme immunoassay for toxin (GDH/EIA), GDH then NAAT (GDH/NAAT), and NAAT then EIA (NAAT/EIA). DESIGN: Decision tree model from the US societal perspective with inputs derived from the literature. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. To assess the impact of uncertainty in model inputs on the findings, we performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted the analysis to represent a population aged 65 years old with diarrhea who received a CDI diagnostic test. MAIN MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB). KEY RESULTS: NAAT alone was the most cost-effective approach overall; GDH/NAAT was the most cost-effective two-step option. NAAT alone led to the highest QALYs gained, at an incremental cost of $54,547 (vs. GDH/NAAT), $55,410 (vs. GDH/EIA), and $50,231 (vs. NAAT/EIA) per QALY gained. NAAT/EIA was not cost-effective compared to any other strategy. GDH/NAAT resulted in a higher QALY compared to GDH/EIA, at an incremental cost of $96,841 per QALY gained. Variability in the likelihood of comorbidities, CDI probability, and age at disease onset did not substantially change the results. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that results were most sensitive to likelihood of recurrence, followed by CDI mortality rate and probability of severe CDI. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored known uncertainties in the base case and confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: NAAT alone and GDH/NAAT (among the two-step options) were the most cost-effective diagnostic test approaches for CDI.
BACKGROUND: No studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of single and two-step different diagnostic test strategies for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), including direct and indirect costs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of commonly available diagnostic tests for CDI including nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) alone, glutamate dehydrogenase followed by enzyme immunoassay for toxin (GDH/EIA), GDH then NAAT (GDH/NAAT), and NAAT then EIA (NAAT/EIA). DESIGN: Decision tree model from the US societal perspective with inputs derived from the literature. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. To assess the impact of uncertainty in model inputs on the findings, we performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted the analysis to represent a population aged 65 years old with diarrhea who received a CDI diagnostic test. MAIN MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB). KEY RESULTS: NAAT alone was the most cost-effective approach overall; GDH/NAAT was the most cost-effective two-step option. NAAT alone led to the highest QALYs gained, at an incremental cost of $54,547 (vs. GDH/NAAT), $55,410 (vs. GDH/EIA), and $50,231 (vs. NAAT/EIA) per QALY gained. NAAT/EIA was not cost-effective compared to any other strategy. GDH/NAAT resulted in a higher QALY compared to GDH/EIA, at an incremental cost of $96,841 per QALY gained. Variability in the likelihood of comorbidities, CDI probability, and age at disease onset did not substantially change the results. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that results were most sensitive to likelihood of recurrence, followed by CDI mortality rate and probability of severe CDI. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored known uncertainties in the base case and confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: NAAT alone and GDH/NAAT (among the two-step options) were the most cost-effective diagnostic test approaches for CDI.
Authors: M J T Crobach; T Planche; C Eckert; F Barbut; E M Terveer; O M Dekkers; M H Wilcox; E J Kuijper Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: L Clifford McDonald; Dale N Gerding; Stuart Johnson; Johan S Bakken; Karen C Carroll; Susan E Coffin; Erik R Dubberke; Kevin W Garey; Carolyn V Gould; Ciaran Kelly; Vivian Loo; Julia Shaklee Sammons; Thomas J Sandora; Mark H Wilcox Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Stuart Johnson; Thomas J Louie; Dale N Gerding; Oliver A Cornely; Scott Chasan-Taber; David Fitts; Steven P Gelone; Colin Broom; David M Davidson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Kristina E E Rokas; James W Johnson; James R Beardsley; Christopher A Ohl; Vera P Luther; John C Williamson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Lauren Lapointe-Shaw; Kim L Tran; Peter C Coyte; Rebecca L Hancock-Howard; Jeff Powis; Susan M Poutanen; Susy Hota Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Paula Rojas García; Simon van der Pol; Antoinette D I van Asselt; Maarten Postma; Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas; Carmelo A Juárez-Castelló; Marino González; Fernando Antoñanzas Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) Date: 2021-01-08