Resource Utilization and Costs Associated with Approaches to Identify Infants with Early-Onset Sepsis.

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2024-01-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23814683231226129
Grace Guan, Neha S Joshi, Adam Frymoyer, Grace D Achepohl, Rebecca Dang, N Kenji Taylor, Joshua A Salomon, Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert, Douglas K Owens
{"title":"Resource Utilization and Costs Associated with Approaches to Identify Infants with Early-Onset Sepsis.","authors":"Grace Guan, Neha S Joshi, Adam Frymoyer, Grace D Achepohl, Rebecca Dang, N Kenji Taylor, Joshua A Salomon, Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert, Douglas K Owens","doi":"10.1177/23814683231226129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective.</b> To compare resource utilization and costs associated with 3 alternative screening approaches to identify early-onset sepsis (EOS) in infants born at ≥35 wk of gestational age, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 2018. <b>Study Design.</b> Decision tree-based cost analysis of the 3 AAP-recommended approaches: 1) categorical risk assessment (categorization by chorioamnionitis exposure status), 2) neonatal sepsis calculator (a multivariate prediction model based on perinatal risk factors), and 3) enhanced clinical observation (assessment based on serial clinical examinations). We evaluated resource utilization and direct costs (2022 US dollars) to the health system. <b>Results.</b> Categorical risk assessment led to the greatest neonatal intensive care unit usage (210 d per 1,000 live births) and antibiotic exposure (6.8%) compared with the neonatal sepsis calculator (112 d per 1,000 live births and 3.6%) and enhanced clinical observation (99 d per 1,000 live births and 3.1%). While the per-live birth hospital costs of the 3 approaches were similar-categorical risk assessment cost $1,360, the neonatal sepsis calculator cost $1,317, and enhanced clinical observation cost $1,310-the cost of infants receiving intervention under categorical risk assessment was approximately twice that of the other 2 strategies. Results were robust to variations in data parameters. <b>Conclusion.</b> The neonatal sepsis calculator and enhanced clinical observation approaches may be preferred to categorical risk assessment as they reduce the number of infants receiving intervention and thus antibiotic exposure and associated costs. All 3 approaches have similar costs over all live births, and prior literature has indicated similar health outcomes. Inclusion of downstream effects of antibiotic exposure in the neonatal period should be evaluated within a cost-effectiveness analysis.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Of the 3 approaches recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2018 to identify early-onset sepsis in infants born at ≥35 weeks, the categorical risk assessment approach leads to about twice as many infants receiving evaluation to rule out early-onset sepsis compared with the neonatal sepsis calculator and enhanced clinical observation approaches.While the hospital costs of the 3 approaches were similar over the entire population of live births, the neonatal sepsis calculator and enhanced clinical observation approaches reduce antibiotic exposure, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and hospital costs associated with interventions as part of the screening approach compared with the categorical risk assessment approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"9 1","pages":"23814683231226129"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10826394/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683231226129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective. To compare resource utilization and costs associated with 3 alternative screening approaches to identify early-onset sepsis (EOS) in infants born at ≥35 wk of gestational age, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 2018. Study Design. Decision tree-based cost analysis of the 3 AAP-recommended approaches: 1) categorical risk assessment (categorization by chorioamnionitis exposure status), 2) neonatal sepsis calculator (a multivariate prediction model based on perinatal risk factors), and 3) enhanced clinical observation (assessment based on serial clinical examinations). We evaluated resource utilization and direct costs (2022 US dollars) to the health system. Results. Categorical risk assessment led to the greatest neonatal intensive care unit usage (210 d per 1,000 live births) and antibiotic exposure (6.8%) compared with the neonatal sepsis calculator (112 d per 1,000 live births and 3.6%) and enhanced clinical observation (99 d per 1,000 live births and 3.1%). While the per-live birth hospital costs of the 3 approaches were similar-categorical risk assessment cost $1,360, the neonatal sepsis calculator cost $1,317, and enhanced clinical observation cost $1,310-the cost of infants receiving intervention under categorical risk assessment was approximately twice that of the other 2 strategies. Results were robust to variations in data parameters. Conclusion. The neonatal sepsis calculator and enhanced clinical observation approaches may be preferred to categorical risk assessment as they reduce the number of infants receiving intervention and thus antibiotic exposure and associated costs. All 3 approaches have similar costs over all live births, and prior literature has indicated similar health outcomes. Inclusion of downstream effects of antibiotic exposure in the neonatal period should be evaluated within a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Highlights: Of the 3 approaches recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2018 to identify early-onset sepsis in infants born at ≥35 weeks, the categorical risk assessment approach leads to about twice as many infants receiving evaluation to rule out early-onset sepsis compared with the neonatal sepsis calculator and enhanced clinical observation approaches.While the hospital costs of the 3 approaches were similar over the entire population of live births, the neonatal sepsis calculator and enhanced clinical observation approaches reduce antibiotic exposure, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and hospital costs associated with interventions as part of the screening approach compared with the categorical risk assessment approach.

与识别早发败血症婴儿的方法相关的资源利用率和成本。
目的根据美国儿科学会(AAP)2018 年的建议,比较 3 种替代筛查方法的资源利用率和相关成本,以识别胎龄≥35 周出生婴儿的早发性败血症(EOS)。研究设计。对 AAP 推荐的 3 种方法进行基于决策树的成本分析:1)分类风险评估(根据绒毛膜羊膜炎暴露状态进行分类);2)新生儿败血症计算器(基于围产期风险因素的多变量预测模型);3)强化临床观察(基于连续临床检查进行评估)。我们评估了资源利用率和卫生系统的直接成本(2022 美元)。结果如下与新生儿败血症计算器(每千名活产儿 112 天,3.6%)和强化临床观察(每千名活产儿 99 天,3.1%)相比,分类风险评估导致的新生儿重症监护室使用率(每千名活产儿 210 天)和抗生素使用率(6.8%)最高。虽然这三种方法的每活产儿医院成本相似--分类风险评估成本为 1360 美元,新生儿败血症计算器成本为 1317 美元,强化临床观察成本为 1310 美元,但接受分类风险评估干预的婴儿成本约为其他两种方法的两倍。结果对数据参数的变化很稳定。结论。与分类风险评估相比,新生儿败血症计算器和强化临床观察法可能更可取,因为它们能减少接受干预的婴儿数量,从而减少抗生素暴露和相关成本。对所有活产婴儿而言,这三种方法的成本相近,先前的文献也显示了相似的健康结果。应在成本效益分析中评估新生儿期抗生素暴露的下游影响:在美国儿科学会2018年推荐的3种识别出生≥35周婴儿早发败血症的方法中,与新生儿败血症计算器和强化临床观察方法相比,分类风险评估方法导致接受评估以排除早发败血症的婴儿人数约为前者的两倍。虽然在所有活产婴儿中,这三种方法的住院费用相似,但与分类风险评估方法相比,新生儿败血症计算器和强化临床观察方法减少了抗生素暴露、新生儿重症监护室入院率以及筛查方法中与干预相关的住院费用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信