4.5 Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Surveillance for Bloodstream Infections for Sepsis Management in Low-Resource Settings

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC TROP MED & HYGIENE
DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.15-0083

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago
  2. U.S. National Institutes of Health-National Science Foundation [R01 TW009237]
  3. UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) [BB/J010367/1]
  4. UK BBSRC Zoonoses in Emerging Livestock Systems [BB/L017679, BB/L018926, BB/L018845]
  5. BBSRC [BB/J010367/1, BB/L018845/1, BB/L018926/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/L018926/1, BB/J010367/1, BB/L018845/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial sepsis is a leading cause of mortality among febrile patients in low- and middle-income countries, but blood culture services are not widely available. Consequently, empiric antimicrobial management of suspected bloodstream infection is based on generic guidelines that are rarely informed by local data on etiology and patterns of antimicrobial resistance. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surveillance for bloodstream infections to inform empiric management of suspected sepsis in low-resource areas, we compared costs and outcomes of generic antimicrobial management with management informed by local data on etiology and patterns of antimicrobial resistance. We applied a decision tree model to a hypothetical population of febrile patients presenting at the district hospital level in Africa. We found that the evidence-based regimen saved 534 more lives per 100,000 patients at an additional cost of $25.35 per patient, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4,739. This ratio compares favorably to standard cost-effectiveness thresholds, but should ultimately be compared with other policy-relevant alternatives to determine whether routine surveillance for bloodstream infections is a cost-effective strategy in the African context.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据