IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0000610.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategies for Diagnosis and Treatment of Suspected Leptospirosis: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yupin Suputtamongkol
  • Wirichada Pongtavornpinyo
  • Yoel Lubell
  • Chuanpit Suttinont
  • Siriwan Hoontrakul
  • Kriangsak Phimda
  • Kitti Losuwanaluk
  • Duangjai Suwancharoen
  • Saowaluk Silpasakorn
  • Wirongrong Chierakul
  • Nick Day

Abstract

Background: Symptoms and signs of leptospirosis are non-specific. Several diagnostic tests for leptospirosis are available and in some instances are being used prior to treatment of leptospirosis-suspected patients. There is therefore a need to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the different treatment strategies in order to avoid misuse of scarce resources and ensure best possible health outcomes for patients. Methods: The study population was adult patients, presented with uncomplicated acute febrile illness, without an obvious focus of infection or malaria or typical dengue infection. We compared the cost and effectiveness of 5 management strategies: 1) no patients tested or given antibiotic treatment; 2) all patients given empirical doxycycline treatment; patients given doxycycline when a patient is tested positive for leptospirosis using: 3) lateral flow; 4) MCAT; 5) latex test. The framework used is a cost-benefit analysis, accounting for all direct medical costs in diagnosing and treating patients suspected of leptospirosis. Outcomes are measured in length of fever after treatment which is then converted to productivity losses to capture the full economic costs. Findings: Empirical doxycycline treatment was the most efficient strategy, being both the least costly alternative and the one that resulted in the shortest duration of fever. The limited sensitivity of all three diagnostic tests implied that their use to guide treatment was not cost-effective. The most influential parameter driving these results was the cost of treating patients with complications for patients who did not receive adequate treatment as a result of incorrect diagnosis or a strategy of no-antibiotic-treatment. Conclusions: Clinicians should continue treating suspected cases of leptospirosis on an empirical basis. This conclusion holds true as long as policy makers are not prioritizing the reduction of use of antibiotics, in which case the use of the latex test would be the most efficient strategy. Author Summary: Symptoms and signs of leptospirosis are non-specific. A number of diagnostic tests for leptospirosis are available. We compared the cost-benefit of 5 management strategies: 1) no patients tested or given antibiotic treatment; 2) all patients given empirical doxycycline treatment; patients given doxycycline when a patient is tested positive for leptospirosis using: 3) lateral flow; 4) MCAT; 5) latex test. Outcomes were measured in duration of fever which is then converted to productivity losses to capture the full economic costs. Empirical doxycycline treatment was found to be the most efficient strategy, being both the least costly alternative and the one that resulted in the lowest average duration of fever. The significantly higher relative cost of using a diagnostic test as compared with presumptive treatment, and the limited sensitivity of all the diagnostic tests implied that only the latex test could be considered cost-effective when compared with the no-antibiotic-treatment option, and that all three tests were still inferior to empirical treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Yupin Suputtamongkol & Wirichada Pongtavornpinyo & Yoel Lubell & Chuanpit Suttinont & Siriwan Hoontrakul & Kriangsak Phimda & Kitti Losuwanaluk & Duangjai Suwancharoen & Saowaluk Silpasakorn & Wirongr, 2010. "Strategies for Diagnosis and Treatment of Suspected Leptospirosis: A Cost-Benefit Analysis," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(2), pages 1-6, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0000610
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000610
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0000610
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0000610&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000610?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0000610. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.