Solomon Ahmed Mohammed, Jason A Roberts, Manuel Mirón-Rubio, Luis Eduardo López Cortés, Getnet Mengistu Assefa, James Pollard, Kate McCarthy, Mark Gilchrist, Menino Cotta, Fekade B Sime
{"title":"量化门诊非肠道抗菌药物治疗方案的成本节约:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Solomon Ahmed Mohammed, Jason A Roberts, Manuel Mirón-Rubio, Luis Eduardo López Cortés, Getnet Mengistu Assefa, James Pollard, Kate McCarthy, Mark Gilchrist, Menino Cotta, Fekade B Sime","doi":"10.1093/jacamr/dlaf049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) programme was introduced to reduce costs and enhance the quality of life for patients requiring prolonged treatment with parenteral antimicrobials. However, given the escalating inflation, the extent of current cost savings achieved through OPAT programmes remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis employ a cost-minimization analysis to quantify the cost savings from OPAT compared to inpatient treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing the costs of parenteral antimicrobial treatment without restriction on study design and year. Two reviewers conducted eligibility screening and cross-validated the extracted data. The cost data were adjusted and inflated to 2023 US dollars. A random effect model calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024584201).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty studies involving 2790 patients were included in the systematic review, and six studies (three randomized controlled trials and three cohorts) were subject to metanalysis. Collectively, these included 560 patients who received treatment in outpatient settings, and 491 treated as inpatients. The cost of parenteral antimicrobial per episode of care was lower in the outpatient settings MD -$5436.73 (95% CI: -$9589.24 to -$1284.22, I² = 96%; <i>P</i> = 0.01) than in inpatient settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>OPAT significantly saves costs compared to inpatient treatment. We recommend comprehensive analysis of treatment costs from all perspectives, including various cost types.</p>","PeriodicalId":14594,"journal":{"name":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","volume":"7 2","pages":"dlaf049"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11976721/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying cost savings from outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy programme: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Solomon Ahmed Mohammed, Jason A Roberts, Manuel Mirón-Rubio, Luis Eduardo López Cortés, Getnet Mengistu Assefa, James Pollard, Kate McCarthy, Mark Gilchrist, Menino Cotta, Fekade B Sime\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jacamr/dlaf049\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) programme was introduced to reduce costs and enhance the quality of life for patients requiring prolonged treatment with parenteral antimicrobials. However, given the escalating inflation, the extent of current cost savings achieved through OPAT programmes remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis employ a cost-minimization analysis to quantify the cost savings from OPAT compared to inpatient treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing the costs of parenteral antimicrobial treatment without restriction on study design and year. Two reviewers conducted eligibility screening and cross-validated the extracted data. The cost data were adjusted and inflated to 2023 US dollars. A random effect model calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024584201).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty studies involving 2790 patients were included in the systematic review, and six studies (three randomized controlled trials and three cohorts) were subject to metanalysis. Collectively, these included 560 patients who received treatment in outpatient settings, and 491 treated as inpatients. The cost of parenteral antimicrobial per episode of care was lower in the outpatient settings MD -$5436.73 (95% CI: -$9589.24 to -$1284.22, I² = 96%; <i>P</i> = 0.01) than in inpatient settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>OPAT significantly saves costs compared to inpatient treatment. We recommend comprehensive analysis of treatment costs from all perspectives, including various cost types.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14594,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance\",\"volume\":\"7 2\",\"pages\":\"dlaf049\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11976721/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlaf049\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAC-Antimicrobial Resistance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlaf049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:门诊肠道外抗菌药物治疗(OPAT)方案的引入是为了降低成本,提高需要长期接受肠道外抗菌药物治疗的患者的生活质量。但是,由于通货膨胀不断升级,目前通过方案方案节省的费用仍不清楚。本系统综述和荟萃分析采用成本最小化分析来量化OPAT与住院治疗相比节省的成本。方法:检索Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE、Embase、PubMed和Web of Science数据库,在不受研究设计和年份限制的情况下,比较肠外抗菌药物治疗成本的研究。两名审稿人进行了资格筛选并交叉验证了提取的数据。成本数据调整膨胀为2023美元。随机效应模型以95%置信区间(CI)计算平均差异(MD)。审查方案已在PROSPERO注册(CRD42024584201)。结果:系统评价纳入20项研究,共纳入2790例患者,其中6项研究(3项随机对照试验和3个队列)纳入meta分析。总的来说,其中包括560名在门诊接受治疗的患者,以及491名住院患者。门诊情况下,每次护理的肠外抗菌素费用较低,MD为5436.73美元(95% CI: - 9589.24美元至- 1284.22美元,I²= 96%;P = 0.01)。结论:与住院治疗相比,OPAT可显著节省费用。我们建议从各个角度综合分析治疗费用,包括各种费用类型。
Quantifying cost savings from outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy programme: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background: The outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) programme was introduced to reduce costs and enhance the quality of life for patients requiring prolonged treatment with parenteral antimicrobials. However, given the escalating inflation, the extent of current cost savings achieved through OPAT programmes remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis employ a cost-minimization analysis to quantify the cost savings from OPAT compared to inpatient treatment.
Methods: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing the costs of parenteral antimicrobial treatment without restriction on study design and year. Two reviewers conducted eligibility screening and cross-validated the extracted data. The cost data were adjusted and inflated to 2023 US dollars. A random effect model calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024584201).
Results: Twenty studies involving 2790 patients were included in the systematic review, and six studies (three randomized controlled trials and three cohorts) were subject to metanalysis. Collectively, these included 560 patients who received treatment in outpatient settings, and 491 treated as inpatients. The cost of parenteral antimicrobial per episode of care was lower in the outpatient settings MD -$5436.73 (95% CI: -$9589.24 to -$1284.22, I² = 96%; P = 0.01) than in inpatient settings.
Conclusions: OPAT significantly saves costs compared to inpatient treatment. We recommend comprehensive analysis of treatment costs from all perspectives, including various cost types.