• BMJ open · Sep 2019

    Meta Analysis

    Cost-effectiveness of selective digestive decontamination (SDD) versus selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) in intensive care units with low levels of antimicrobial resistance: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

    • Denise van Hout, Nienke L Plantinga, Patricia C Bruijning-Verhagen, OostdijkEvelien A NEANUniversity Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands., de SmetAnne Marie G AAMGAUniversity Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands., G Ardine de Wit, BontenMarc J MMJMUniversity Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands., and Cornelis H van Werkhoven.
    • Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands D.vanHout-3@umcutrecht.nl.
    • BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 6; 9 (9): e028876.

    ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of selective digestive decontamination (SDD) as compared to selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) in intensive care units (ICUs) with low levels of antimicrobial resistance.DesignPost-hoc analysis of a previously performed individual patient data meta-analysis of two cluster-randomised cross-over trials.Setting24 ICUs in the Netherlands.Participants12 952 ICU patients who were treated with ≥1 dose of SDD (n=6720) or SOD (n=6232).InterventionsSDD versus SOD.Primary And Secondary Outcome MeasuresThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; ie, costs to prevent one in-hospital death) was calculated by comparing differences in direct healthcare costs and in-hospital mortality of patients treated with SDD versus SOD. A willingness-to-pay curve was plotted to reflect the probability of cost-effectiveness of SDD for a range of different values of maximum costs per prevented in-hospital death.ResultsThe ICER resulting from the fixed-effect meta-analysis, adjusted for clustering and differences in baseline characteristics, showed that SDD significantly reduced in-hospital mortality (adjusted absolute risk reduction 0.0195, 95% CI 0.0050 to 0.0338) with no difference in costs (adjusted cost difference €62 in favour of SDD, 95% CI -€1079 to €935). Thus, SDD yielded significantly lower in-hospital mortality and comparable costs as compared with SOD. At a willingness-to-pay value of €33 633 per one prevented in-hospital death, SDD had a probability of 90.0% to be cost-effective as compared with SOD.ConclusionIn Dutch ICUs, SDD has a very high probability of cost-effectiveness as compared to SOD. These data support the implementation of SDD in settings with low levels of antimicrobial resistance.© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…