MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387260572 · doi:10.1186/s12887-023-04235-3

A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of antibiotic prescription strategies for non-complicated respiratory tract infections in children

2023· article· en· W4387260572 on OpenAlexaff
Gemma Mas‐Dalmau, María José Pérez-Lacasta, Pablo Alonso‐Coello, Pedro Jesús Gorrotxategi-Gorrotxategi, Emma Argüelles-Prendes, Oscar Espinazo-Ramos, Teresa Valls-Duran, María Encarnación Gonzalo-Alonso, María Pilar Cortés-Viana, Tatiana Menéndez-Bada, M. Vázquez-Fernández, Ana Isabel Pérez-Hernández, Laura Muñoz-Ortíz, Carmen Villanueva-López, Paul Little, Mariam de la Poza Abad, Misericòrdia Carles-Lavila, Josefa Manuel-Enguidanos, Natividad Herrero-Torres, Lorena Martínez-Villamizar, Carme Palassí-Bargalló, Maria Amor Peix-Galito, Francesca Camps-Serra, Rosa Mené-Bergara, Paloma Ramírez-Álvarez, Marisa Pietrafesa-Barreiro, Pilar Ortiz-Ros, Virgina del Rey-Márquez, Lucía Barahona-Rondón, María Rosario Benítez-Rubio, Ana María Valero-Marugán, María Laura Casado-Sánchez, Ángeles de Pando-Bravo, Miren Arrate Bengoa-Gorosabe, Carmen Callén-Blecua, Inés Hernández-Salvador, Irene Ozcoidi-Erro, Javier Eduardo Blanco-González, Carmelo Gutiérrez-Abad

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pediatrics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsNexus Clinical Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionEurosRespiratory tract infectionsAntibioticsHealth careCost effectivenessAntibiotic resistanceCost-effectiveness analysisIncremental cost-effectiveness ratioDefined daily doseQuality-adjusted life yearPediatricsIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineRespiratory systemPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prescription for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in children attending primary care centres is almost double that predicted according to bacterial prevalence. Delayed antibiotic prescription (DAP) is designed to deploy a more rational use of antibiotics. While studies have evaluated DAP efficacy and safety for children with RTIs, little research has been conducted on the economic implications. METHODS: Our trial compared cost-effectiveness for DAP, immediate antibiotic prescription (IAP), and no antibiotic prescription (NAP) for children aged 2-14 years with acute uncomplicated RTIs attended to in 39 primary care centres in Spain. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured in euros per gained quality-adjusted life days (QALDs). Net monetary benefit (NMB) was also calculated as a tool for decision making. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective for a time horizon of 30 days, and included healthcare direct costs, non-healthcare direct and indirect costs, and the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) cost. RESULTS: DAP was the most cost-effective strategy, even when the cost of AMR was included. QALD values for the three strategies were very similar. IAP compared to DAP was more costly (109.68 vs 100.90 euros) and similarly effective (27.88 vs 27.94 QALDs). DAP compared to NAP was more costly (100.90 vs 97.48 euros) and more effective (27.94 vs. 27.82 QALDs). The ICER for DAP compared to NAP was 28.84 euros per QALD. The deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that non-healthcare indirect costs had the greatest impact on the ICER. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that DAP was the preferred option in approximately 81.75% of Monte Carlo iterations, assuming a willingness-to-pay value of 82.2 euros per gained QALD. CONCLUSIONS: When clinicians are in doubt about whether an antibiotic is needed for children with RTIs attending PC centres, those treated with the DAP strategy will have slightly better efficiency outcomes than those treated with IAP because its costs are lower than those of IAP. DAP is also the most cost-effective strategy over a time horizon of 30 days if AMR is considered, despite higher short-term costs than NAP. However, if in the long term the costs of AMR are larger than estimated, NAP could also be an alternative strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (identifier NCT01800747; Date: 28/02/2013 (retrospectively registered).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.011
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PediatricsSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207