A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of C-reactive protein point-of-care testing to guide antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care settings in Ireland: a decision-analytic model. (30th September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fawsitt, Christopher G; Lucey, Des; Harrington, Patricia; Jordan, Karen; Marshall, Liam; O'Brien, Kirsty K; Teljeur, Conor
• Is Part Of: Family practice. Volume 39:Number 3(2022)
• Page Start: 389
• Page End: 397
• Publication Date: 2021-09-30
• Subjects: antibiotics -- antimicrobial stewardship -- health economics -- inflammatory processes/inflammatory markers (e.g. C-reactive protein (CRP)) -- primary care -- respiratory diseases; Primary care (Medicine) -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 616.005
• DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmab123
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0263-2136

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Approximately 60% of antibiotics issued in primary care are for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs), which are largely self-limiting and do not require antibiotics. Point-of-care testing (POCT) devices that measure C-reactive protein (CRP)—a biomarker for infection—can be used to guide prescribing decisions. Objective: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of a national CRP POCT program to guide antibiotic prescribing for acute RTIs in primary care in Ireland. Methods: We compared CRP POCT with and without enhanced communication skills training of general practitioners against usual care. A probabilistic decision tree was used to investigate cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the healthcare system. The model considered outcomes for the Irish population over a 5-year time horizon. Inputs were synthesized from published studies. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using an incremental cost per prescription avoided. Results: CRP POCT with and without communication training were more costly but more effective than usual care over 5 years. CRP POCT alone was dominated, while the combined intervention had a cost per prescription avoided of €111 (95% CI: €45–243) versus usual care. The budget impact was costly over 5 years, but potential budget savings were available depending on the implementation scenario. The findings were largely robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: CRP POCT reduces antibiotic prescribing, but increases healthcare costs. The most cost-effective program of CRP POCT includes enhanced communication skills training. Further research on the impact of CRP POCT beyond 5 years is warranted, as well as the potential impact on antimicrobial resistance.