A COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND BUDGET IMPACT ANALYSIS OF C-REACTIVE PROTEIN POINT-OF-CARE TESTING TO GUIDE ANTIBIOTIC PRESCRIBING FOR RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTIONS IN PRIMARY CARE SETTINGS IN IRELAND
Author(s)
Fawsitt CG1, Lucey D2, Harrington P3, Jordan K4, Marshall L5, O'Brien KK4, Teljeur C4
1Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork, Ireland, 2Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), Cork, Ireland, 3Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), Dublin, Ireland, 4Health Information and Quality Authority, Dublin, Ireland, 5Health Information and Quality Authority, Dublin, D, Ireland
OBJECTIVES : The problem of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is substantial, exacerbated by excessive and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Approximately 60% of antibiotics issued in primary care are for respiratory tract infections (RTIs), which are mostly self-limiting and do not require antibiotics. Point-of-care testing (POCT) devices that measure C-reactive protein (CRP) – a biomarker for infection – can be used to guide and ultimately reduce prescribing. We performed a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of a national programme of CRP POCT to improve antimicrobial stewardship for RTIs in primary care in Ireland. METHODS : We compared CRP POCT – with and without communication skills training of General Practitioners – against usual care. We performed a network meta-analysis to establish clinical effectiveness and developed a probabilistic decision tree to investigate cost-effectiveness and budget impact from the perspective of the healthcare system. The model considered outcomes for the Irish population over five years. Inputs were synthesised from published studies. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using cost-per-prescription avoided. RESULTS : CRP POCT with/out communication training was more costly and effective than usual care, although some uncertainty in long-term effectiveness was observed. CRP POCT without communication training was dominated, while the combined intervention had a cost-per-prescription avoided of €111 (95% CI €45 to €243) versus usual care. The budget impact was costly over five years, estimated at €4.5 million (95% CI €-22.8 to €34.8 million) and €23.9 million (95% CI €5.1 to €43.8 million) with/out communication training. The findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS : CRP POCT is most cost-effective when combined with communication training. However, the budget impact is costly, and there’s limited evidence that the effect is sustained in the long-term, suggesting the device may not reflect value for money or sufficiently address the growing problem of AMR. CRP POCT should be considered alongside a suite of interventions aimed at improving antimicrobial stewardship.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2019-11, ISPOR Europe 2019, Copenhagen, Denmark
Code
PMD18
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Medical Technologies
Topic Subcategory
Budget Impact Analysis, Medical Devices
Disease
Medical Devices