No Cover Image

Journal article 8 views

Cost-effectiveness of C-reactive protein point of care testing for safely reducing antibiotic consumption for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as part of the multicentre, parallel-arm, open, individuall...

Berni Sewell, Nick Francis Orcid Logo, Shaun Harris Orcid Logo, David Gillespie Orcid Logo, Janine Bates Orcid Logo, Patrick White Orcid Logo, Mohammed Fasihul Alam Orcid Logo, Kerenza Hood, Christopher C Butler Orcid Logo, Deborah Fitzsimmons Orcid Logo

BMJ Open, Volume: 14, Issue: 11, Start page: e084144

Swansea University Authors: Berni Sewell, Shaun Harris Orcid Logo, Deborah Fitzsimmons Orcid Logo

Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.

Abstract

Objectives: Many patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care do not benefit from antibiotics. Excessive use wastes resources, promotes antimicrobial resistance and can harm patients. Design: We conducted a within-trial economic evalu...

Full description

Published in: BMJ Open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Published: BMJ 2024
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa68188
Abstract: Objectives: Many patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care do not benefit from antibiotics. Excessive use wastes resources, promotes antimicrobial resistance and can harm patients. Design: We conducted a within-trial economic evaluation, using a UK National Health Service perspective, as part of the multicentre, parallel-arm, open, individually randomised, controlled PACE trial. Setting: Participating general practices in primary care. Participants: PACE included 324 and 325 consenting participants presenting with AECOPD in the usual-care and CRP-guided groups, respectively. Intervention: We assessed the cost-effectiveness (CE) of a C-reactive protein point-of-care-test (CRP-POCT) in addition to usual clinical assessment to guide antibiotic prescribing for AECOPD in primary care. Primary and secondary outcome measures: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of incremental cost per 1% antibiotic consumption reduction at 4 weeks and a cost-utility analysis (CUA) at 6 months were performed, based on a modified intention-to-treat population. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of uncertainty on the results. CE acceptability curves represent the probability of CRP-POCT being cost-effective at different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Results: Both groups had similar clinical outcomes, but a 20% absolute reduction in antibiotic consumption was observed in the CRP-guided group. CRP-POCT costs of £11.31 per test were largely offset by savings in healthcare resource use related to COPD. The mean incremental CE ratios of CRP-POCT were £120 per 1% absolute reduction in antibiotic consumption at 4 weeks and £1054 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 6 months. Sensitivity analysis showed that the CEA results were most affected by changes in healthcare costs, while CUA was sensitive due to marginal differences in costs and outcomes. There is a 73% probability of CRP-POCT being cost-effective at WTP ≤£20 000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: CRP-POCT is a cost-effective intervention for safely reducing antibiotic consumption in patients with AECOPD.Trial registration number ISRCTN24346473
College: Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
Funders: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment programme - 12/33/12
Issue: 11
Start Page: e084144