The Cost-Effectiveness of Rapid Diagnostic Testing for the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections with or without Antimicrobial Stewardship

Abstract

SUMMARY Bloodstream infections are associated with considerable morbidity and health care costs. Molecular rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) are a promising complement to conventional laboratory methods for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections and may reduce the time to effective therapy among patients with bloodstream infections. The concurrent implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) may reinforce these benefits. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectivenesses of competing strategies for the diagnosis of bloodstream infection alone or combined with an ASP. To this effect, we constructed a decision-analytic model comparing 12 strategies for the diagnosis of bloodstream infection. The main arms compared the use of mRDT and conventional laboratory methods with or without an ASP. The baseline strategy used as the standard was the use of conventional laboratory methods without an ASP, and our decision-analytic model assessed the cost-effectivenesses of 5 principal strategies: mRDT (with and without an ASP), mRDT with an ASP, mRDT without an ASP, conventional laboratory methods with an ASP, and conventional laboratory methods without an ASP. Furthermore, based on the availability of data in the literature, we assessed the cost-effectivenesses of 7 mRDT subcategories, as follows: PCR with an ASP, matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight (MALDI-TOF) analysis with an ASP, peptide nucleic acid fluorescent in situ hybridization (PNA-FISH) with an ASP, a blood culture nanotechnology microarray system for Gram-negative bacteria (BC-GP) with an ASP, a blood culture nanotechnology microarray system for Gram-positive bacteria (BC-GN) with an ASP, PCR without an ASP, and PNA-FISH without an ASP. Our patient population consisted of adult inpatients in U.S. hospitals with suspected bloodstream infection. The time horizon of the model was the projected life expectancy of the patients. In a base-case analysis, cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating the numbers of bloodstream infection deaths averted, the numbers of quality-adjusted life years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). In a probabilistic analysis, uncertainty was addressed by plotting cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds. In the base-case analysis, MALDI-TOF analysis with an ASP was the most cost-effective strategy, resulting in savings of $29,205 per quality-adjusted life year and preventing 1 death per 14 patients with suspected bloodstream infection tested compared to conventional laboratory methods without an ASP (ICER, −$29,205/quality-adjusted life year). BC-GN with an ASP (ICER, −$23,587/quality-adjusted life year), PCR with an ASP (ICER, −$19,833/quality-adjusted life year), and PCR without an ASP (ICER, −$21,039/quality-adjusted life year) were other cost-effective options. In the probabilistic analysis, mRDT was dominant and cost-effective in 85.1% of simulations. Importantly, mRDT with an ASP had an 80.0% chance of being cost-effective, while mRDT without an ASP had only a 41.1% chance. In conclusion, our findings suggest that mRDTs are cost-effective for the diagnosis of patients with suspected bloodstream infection and can reduce health care expenditures. Notably, the combination of mRDT and an ASP can result in substantial health care savings.