Clinical Microbiology Costs for Methods of Active Surveillance for Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase–Producing Enterobacteriaceae

July 30, 2014 at 2:35 pm

Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology April 2014 V.35 N.4 P.350-355

Amy J. Mathers, MD,1,2 Melinda Poulter, PhD,2 Dawn Dirks, MS,2 Joanne Carroll, BS,2 Costi D. Sifri, MD,1 and Kevin C. Hazen, PhD2,a

  1. Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
  2. Department of Pathology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia

a Present affiliation: Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina

Address correspondence to Amy J. Mathers, MD, Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health, University of Virginia Health System, PO Box 801361, Charlottesville, VA 22908 (ajm5b@virginia.edu).

Objective

To compare direct laboratory costs of different methods for perirectal screening for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) colonization.

Design

Cost-benefit analysis.

Setting

A university hospital and affiliated long-term acute care hospital (LTACH).

Participants

Inpatients from the hospital or LTACH.

Methods

Perirectal samples were collected from inpatients at risk for exposure to CPE. In 2009, we compared the accuracy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)–recommended CPE screening method with similar methods incorporating a chromogenic agar (CA). We then performed a cost projection analysis using 2012 screening results for the CA method, the CDC method, and a molecular assay with wholesale pricing based on the 2009 analysis. Comparisons of turnaround and personnel time were also performed.

Results

A total of 185 (2.7%) of 6,860 samples were confirmed as CPE positive during 2012. We previously found that the CDC protocol had a lower sensitivity than the CA method and predicted that the CDC protocol would have missed 92 of the CPE-positive screening results, whereas the modified protocol using CA would have missed 26, assuming similar prevalence and performance. Turnaround time was 3 days using the CDC and CA-modified protocols compared with 1 day for molecular testing. The estimated annual total program cost and total technologist’s hours would be the following: CA-modified protocol, $37,441 and 376 hours; CDC protocol, $22,818 and 482 hours; and molecular testing, $224,596 and 343 hours.

Conclusions

The CDC screening protocol appeared to be the least expensive perirectal screening method. However, expense must be weighed against a lower sensitivity and extra labor needed for additional work-up of non-CPE isolates. The molecular test has the shortest turnaround time but the greatest expense.

abstract

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/675603

PDF

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1086/675603.pdf?&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true

 

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Antimicrobianos, Bacterias, Bacteriemias, Epidemiología, Infecciones emergentes, Metodos diagnosticos, Resistencia bacteriana, Sepsis.

Addressing the Emergence and Impact of Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Organisms: A Critical Focus for the Next Decade Case 20-2014 — A 65-Year-Old Man with Dyspnea and Progressively Worsening Lung Disease


Calendar

July 2014
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Most Recent Posts


%d bloggers like this: