BMJ open · 2024
Cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis for the management of recurrent urinary tract infections in secondary care: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАРандомизированное исследованиеEquivalence TrialСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
King William, Homer Tara, Harding Chris, Mossop Helen, Chadwick Thomas, Abouhajar Alaa, Vale Luke
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis in the management of recurrent urinary tract infections.
DESIGN: Multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.
SETTING: Eight centres in the UK, recruiting from June 2016 to June 2018.
PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections, requiring prophylactic treatment.
INTERVENTIONS: Women were randomised to receive once-daily antibiotic prophylaxis or twice-daily methenamine hippurate for 12 months. Treatment allocation was not masked and crossover between arms was allowed.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 18 months. All costs were collected from a UK National Health Service perspective. QALYs were estimated based on responses to the EQ-5D-5L administered at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months. Incremental costs and QALYs were estimated using an adjusted analysis which controlled for observed and unobserved characteristics. Stochastic sensitivity analysis was used to illustrate uncertainty on a cost-effectiveness plane and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. A sensitivity analysis, not specified in the protocol, considered the costs associated with antibiotic resistance.
RESULTS: Data on 205 participants were included in the economic analysis. On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly (-£40; 95% CI: -684 to 603) and more effective (0.014 QALYs; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.07) than antibiotic prophylaxis. Over the range of values considered for an additional QALY, the probability of methenamine hippurate being considered cost-effective ranged from 51% to 67%.
CONCLUSIONS: On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly and more effective than antibiotic prophylaxis but these results are subject to uncertainty. Methenamine hippurate is more likely to be considered cost-effective when the benefits of reduced antibiotic use were included in the analysis.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70219762.
DESIGN: Multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.
SETTING: Eight centres in the UK, recruiting from June 2016 to June 2018.
PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections, requiring prophylactic treatment.
INTERVENTIONS: Women were randomised to receive once-daily antibiotic prophylaxis or twice-daily methenamine hippurate for 12 months. Treatment allocation was not masked and crossover between arms was allowed.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 18 months. All costs were collected from a UK National Health Service perspective. QALYs were estimated based on responses to the EQ-5D-5L administered at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months. Incremental costs and QALYs were estimated using an adjusted analysis which controlled for observed and unobserved characteristics. Stochastic sensitivity analysis was used to illustrate uncertainty on a cost-effectiveness plane and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. A sensitivity analysis, not specified in the protocol, considered the costs associated with antibiotic resistance.
RESULTS: Data on 205 participants were included in the economic analysis. On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly (-£40; 95% CI: -684 to 603) and more effective (0.014 QALYs; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.07) than antibiotic prophylaxis. Over the range of values considered for an additional QALY, the probability of methenamine hippurate being considered cost-effective ranged from 51% to 67%.
CONCLUSIONS: On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly and more effective than antibiotic prophylaxis but these results are subject to uncertainty. Methenamine hippurate is more likely to be considered cost-effective when the benefits of reduced antibiotic use were included in the analysis.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70219762.