BMJ open gastroenterology · 2023
Cost-effectiveness analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis versus no antibiotic prophylaxis for acute cholecystectomy.
Рандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяEquivalence TrialНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Satheeskaran Maya, Hussan Aminah, Anto Ailin, de Preux Laure
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: For acute cholecystitis, the treatment of choice is laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In mild-to-moderate cases, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of postoperative infectious complications (POICs) lacks evidence regarding its cost-effectiveness when compared with no prophylaxis. In the context of rising antimicrobial resistance, there is a clear rationale for a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to determine the most efficient use of National Health Service resources and antibiotic routine usage.
DESIGN: 16 of 226 patients (7.1%) in the single-dose prophylaxis group and 29 of 231 (12.6%) in the non-prophylaxis group developed POICs. A CEA was carried out using health outcome data from thePerioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the treatment of acute cholecystitis (PEANUTS II) multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, clinical trial. Costs were measured in monetary units using pound sterling, and effectiveness expressed as POICs avoided within the first 30 days after cholecystectomy.
RESULTS: This CEA produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -£792.70. This suggests a modest cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis being marginally less costly and more effective than no prophylaxis. Three sensitivity analyses were executed considering full adherence to the antibiotic, POICs with increased complexity and break-point analysis suggesting caution in the recommendation of systematic use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of POICs.
CONCLUSION: The results of this CEA point to greater consensus in UK-based guidelines surrounding the provision of antibiotic prophylaxis for mild-to-moderate cases of acute cholecystitis.
DESIGN: 16 of 226 patients (7.1%) in the single-dose prophylaxis group and 29 of 231 (12.6%) in the non-prophylaxis group developed POICs. A CEA was carried out using health outcome data from thePerioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the treatment of acute cholecystitis (PEANUTS II) multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, clinical trial. Costs were measured in monetary units using pound sterling, and effectiveness expressed as POICs avoided within the first 30 days after cholecystectomy.
RESULTS: This CEA produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -£792.70. This suggests a modest cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis being marginally less costly and more effective than no prophylaxis. Three sensitivity analyses were executed considering full adherence to the antibiotic, POICs with increased complexity and break-point analysis suggesting caution in the recommendation of systematic use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of POICs.
CONCLUSION: The results of this CEA point to greater consensus in UK-based guidelines surrounding the provision of antibiotic prophylaxis for mild-to-moderate cases of acute cholecystitis.