Screening, isolation, and decolonisation strategies in the control of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in intensive care units : cost effectiveness evaluation
Robotham, J.V., Graves, N., Cookson, B.D., Barnett, A.G., ,, ,, ,, ,, & , (2011) Screening, isolation, and decolonisation strategies in the control of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in intensive care units : cost effectiveness evaluation. British Medical Journal, 343(oct05 ), d5694.
Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of screening, isolation and decolonisation strategies in the control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in intensive care units (ICUs).
Design: Economic evaluation.
Setting: England and Wales.
Population: ICU patients.
Main outcome measures: Infections, deaths, costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for alternative strategies, net monetary benefits (NMBs).
Results: All strategies using isolation but not decolonisation improved health outcomes but increased costs. When MRSA prevalence on admission to the ICU was 5% and the willingness to pay per QALY gained was between £20,000 and £30,000, the best such strategy was to isolate only those patients at high risk of carrying MRSA (either pre-emptively or following identification by admission and weekly MRSA screening using chromogenic agar). Universal admission and weekly screening using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based MRSA detection coupled with isolation was unlikely to be cost-effective unless prevalence was high (10% colonised with MRSA on admission to the ICU). All decolonisation strategies improved health outcomes and reduced costs. While universal decolonisation (regardless of MRSA status) was the most cost-effective in the short-term, strategies using screening to target MRSA carriers may be preferred due to reduced risk of selecting for resistance. Amongst such targeted strategies, universal admission and weekly PCR screening coupled with decolonisation with nasal mupirocin was the most cost-effective. This finding was robust to ICU size, MRSA admission prevalence, the proportion of patients classified as high-risk, and the precise value of willingness to pay for health benefits.
Conclusions: MRSA control strategies that use decolonisation are likely to be cost-saving in an ICU setting provided resistance is lacking, and combining universal PCR-based screening with decolonisation is likely to represent good value for money if untargeted decolonisation is considered unacceptable. In ICUs where decolonisation is not implemented there is insufficient evidence to support universal MRSA screening outside high prevalence settings.
Citation countsare sourced monthly fromand citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
Full-text downloadsdisplays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Keywords:||meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, isolation, decolonisation, screening|
|Subjects:||Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (110000) > CLINICAL SCIENCES (110300) > Intensive Care (110310)|
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > ECONOMICS (140000) > APPLIED ECONOMICS (140200) > Health Economics (140208)
|Divisions:||Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health|
Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Current > Schools > School of Public Health & Social Work
|Copyright Owner:||Copyright 2011 BMJ Publishing Group|
|Deposited On:||10 Oct 2011 08:30|
|Last Modified:||02 Jun 2013 20:42|
Repository Staff Only: item control page