Antibiotic prophylaxis for haematogenous bacterial arthritis in patients with joint disease: a cost effectiveness analysis

Health Economics of Antibiotics

Antibiotics have made a significant contribution to improving patient health, but policy makers and health care payers are concerned about the costs of antibiotics in addition to their effectiveness. This paper aims to assess the value of antibiotics by examining incremental cost-utility ratios of antibiotics. Evidence was derived from cost-utility analyses of antibiotics included in the Tufts-New England Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry through September 2009. The analysis included 85 incremental cost-utility ratios from 23 cost-utility analyses. The findings showed that 38.8% of incremental cost-utility ratios related to dominant antibiotics (i.e., more effective and less costly than the comparator); 45.9% referred to antibiotics that improved effectiveness, but also increased costs; and 15.3% related to dominated antibiotics (i.e., less effective and more costly than the comparator). The median ratio was 748 € per quality-adjusted life year. Using threshold values of 20,000 € per quality-adjusted life year and 50,000 € per quality-adjusted life year, the probability that an antibiotic provides value for money was 64% and 67%, respectively. The current evidence base suggests that the majority of antibiotics provide value for money and that antibiotics can aid decision makers to attain further population health improvements, whilst containing pharmaceutical expenditures.

Relationship between perioperative urinary tract infection and deep infection after joint arthroplasty

Surgical wound infection is a serious and potentially catastrophic complication after joint arthroplasty. Urinary tract infection is a common infection that creates a potential reservoir of resistant pathogens and increases patient morbidity. We asked whether treated preoperative and postoperative urinary tract infections are risk factors for deep joint infection. We examined the medical records of 19,735 patients. The minimum had joint infections develop. Of these, three had preoperative and four had postoperative urinary tract infections. The majority of bacteria were not enteric. The bacteria in the two types of infections were not identical. Control subjects were randomly selected from a list of patients matched with patients having infections. Of these, eight had preoperative and one had postoperative urinary tract infections. We found no association between the preoperative urinary tract infection (odds ratio, 0.341; 95% confidence interval, 0.086-1.357) or postoperative urinary tract infection (odds ratio, 4.222; 95% confidence interval, 0.457-38.9) and wound infection. Only one of the 58 patients with wound infections had a urinary tract infection with the same bacteria in both infections. Given the infection rate was very low (0.29%), the power of the study was only 25%. Although limited, the data suggest patients with urinary tract infections had no more likelihood of postoperative infection. We believe treated urinary tract infection should not be a reason to delay or postpone surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Antibiotic prophylaxis before invasive dental procedures in patients with arthroplasties of the hip and knee

More than a million hip replacements are carried out each year worldwide, and the number of other artificial joints inserted is also rising, so that infections associated with arthroplasties have become more common. However, there is a paucity of literature on infections due to haematogenous seeding following dental procedures. We reviewed the published literature to establish the current knowledge on this problem and to determine the evidence for routine antibiotic prophylaxis prior to a dental procedure.

We found that antimicrobial prophylaxis before dental interventions in patients with artificial joints lacks evidence-based information and thus cannot be universally recommended.

Adherence of Pharmacoeconomic Studies to National Guidelines in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the adherence of Dutch pharmacoeconomic studies to the national guidelines of conducting a pharmacoeconomic evaluation.

METHODS

Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research were issued in 1999. All Dutch pharmacoeconomic studies that were published in English during 2000-2002 were selected for our review. Two reviewers examined each study for relevance and compared each study with the nine methodological guidelines selected.

RESULTS

It was found that 29 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. The societal perspective was taken in 13 out of the 29 studies (45%), an adequate time period of analysis was chosen in 21 (72%), effectiveness was explicitly differentiated from efficacy in 17 (59%), an incremental analysis was performed in 23 (79%), costs, benefits and health gains were discounted in 24 (83%), effectiveness was expressed in LYGs or QALYs in 16 (55%), reference prices were used in 8 (28%), subgroup analysis was presented in 13 (45%) and sensitivity analysis was included in 26 (90%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this review we found that the adherence of studies to some of the Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies is fair. However, major improvements are required with respect to the adoption of the societal perspective, presentation of adequate subgroup analyses and application of reference prices.