Pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial : cost effectiveness analysis

Objective To assess tire cost effectiveness of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers in patients admitted to hospital. Design Cost effectiveness analysis carried out alongside the pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial; a multicentre UK based pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting 11 hospitals in six UK NHS trusts. Participants Intention to treat population comprising 1971 participants. Main outcome measures Kaplan Meier estimates of restricted mean time to development of pressure ulcers and total costs for treatment in hospital. Results Alternating pressure mattresses were associated with lower overall costs (283.6 pound per patient on average, 95% confidence interval -377.59 pound to. 976.79) pound mainly due to reduced length of stay in hospital, and greater benefits (a delay in time to ulceration of 10.64 days on average, - 24.40 to 3.09). The differences in health benefits and total costs for hospital stay between alternating pressure mattresses and alternating pressure overlays were not statistically significant; however, a cost effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that on average alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays were associated with air 80% probability of being cost saving. Conclusion Alternating pressure mattresses for the prevention of pressure ulcers are more likely to be cost effective and are more acceptable to patients than alternating pressure overlays

An economic model for the prevention of MRSA infections after surgery:non-glycopeptide or glycopeptide antibiotic prophylaxis?

AIM: Surgical site infection is commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus. The multiresistant strains (MRSA) are resistant to most antibiotic prophylaxis regimens. Our aim was to explore whether there is a threshold of MRSA prevalence at which switching to routine glycopeptide-based antibiotic prophylaxis becomes cost-effective. METHODS: An indicative model was designed to explore the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin, cephalosporin or a combination, in patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty. RESULTS: If the MRSA infection rate is equal to or above 0.25% and the rate of other infections with cephalosporin prophylaxis is equal to or above 0.2%, use of the combination antibiotic prophylaxis is optimal. DISCUSSION: Modelling the cost-effectiveness of interventions for MRSA prevention is complex due to uncertainty around resistance and effectiveness of glycopeptides. CONCLUSIONS: The indicative model provides a framework for evaluation. More work is needed to understand the impact of antibiotic resistance over time in these currently effective antibiotics