IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0188818.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for diagnosis of uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women presenting in primary care

Author

Listed:
  • Judith E Bosmans
  • Veerle M H Coupé
  • Bart J Knottnerus
  • Suzanne E Geerlings
  • Eric P Moll van Charante
  • Gerben ter Riet

Abstract

Background: Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs) are common in primary care resulting in substantial costs. Since antimicrobial resistance against antibiotics for UTIs is rising, accurate diagnosis is needed in settings with low rates of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of different strategies to diagnose UTIs in women who contacted their general practitioner (GP) with painful and/or frequent micturition between 2006 and 2008 in and around Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Methods: This is a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis using data from 196 women who underwent four tests: history, urine stick, sediment, dipslide, and the gold standard, a urine culture. Decision trees were constructed reflecting 15 diagnostic strategies comprising different parallel and sequential combinations of the four tests. Using the decision trees, for each strategy the costs and the proportion of women with a correct positive or negative diagnosis were estimated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to estimate uncertainty surrounding costs and effects. Uncertainty was presented using cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves. Results: Most sequential testing strategies resulted in higher proportions of correctly classified women and lower costs than parallel testing strategies. For different willingness to pay thresholds, the most cost-effective strategies were: 1) performing a dipstick after a positive history for thresholds below €10 per additional correctly classified patient, 2) performing both a history and dipstick for thresholds between €10 and €17 per additional correctly classified patient, 3) performing a dipstick if history was negative, followed by a sediment if the dipstick was negative for thresholds between €17 and €118 per additional correctly classified patient, 4) performing a dipstick if history was negative, followed by a dipslide if the dipstick was negative for thresholds above €118 per additional correctly classified patient. Conclusion: Depending on decision makers’ willingness to pay for one additional correctly classified woman, the strategy consisting of performing a history and dipstick simultaneously (ceiling ratios between €10 and €17) or performing a sediment if history and subsequent dipstick are negative (ceiling ratios between €17 and €118) are the most cost-effective strategies to diagnose a UTI.

Suggested Citation

  • Judith E Bosmans & Veerle M H Coupé & Bart J Knottnerus & Suzanne E Geerlings & Eric P Moll van Charante & Gerben ter Riet, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for diagnosis of uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women presenting in primary care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-16, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0188818
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188818
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188818&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0188818?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(2_suppl), pages 68-80, April.
    2. Andrew H. Briggs & Ron Goeree & Gord Blackhouse & Bernie J. O’Brien, 2002. "Probabilistic Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness Models: Choosing between Treatment Strategies for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(4), pages 290-308, August.
    3. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Karin H. M. Jacob‐Tacken & Marc A. Koopmanschap & Willem Jan Meerding & Johan L. Severens, 2005. "Correcting for compensating mechanisms related to productivity costs in economic evaluations of health care programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 435-443, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Henriksson & Fredrik Lundgren & Per Carlsson, 2006. "Informing the efficient use of health care and health care research resources ‐ the case of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1311-1322, December.
    2. Janne Martikainen & Hannu Valtonen & Tuula Pirttilä, 2004. "Potential cost-effectiveness of a family-based program in mild Alzheimer’s disease patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(2), pages 136-142, May.
    3. Simon Eckermann & Andrew Willan, 2011. "Presenting Evidence and Summary Measures to Best Inform Societal Decisions When Comparing Multiple Strategies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(7), pages 563-577, July.
    4. Helen Dakin & Morris Sherman & Scott Fung & Carrie Fidler & Anthony Bentley, 2011. "Cost Effectiveness of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B from a Canadian Public Payer Perspective," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(12), pages 1075-1091, December.
    5. Haitham Tuffaha & Shelley Roberts & Wendy Chaboyer & Louisa Gordon & Paul Scuffham, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis of Nutritional Support for Preventing Pressure Ulcers in High-risk Patients: Implement Now, Research Later," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 167-179, April.
    6. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    7. A. E. Ades & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2006. "Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 373-381, April.
    8. Basu, Anirban & Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2011. "The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 695-706, July.
    9. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Simon Eckermann & Tim Coelli, 2008. "Including quality attributes in a model of health care efficiency: A net benefit approach," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032008, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    11. Frank G. Sandmann & Julie V. Robotham & Sarah R. Deeny & W. John Edmunds & Mark Jit, 2018. "Estimating the opportunity costs of bed‐days," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 592-605, March.
    12. Clarke, Philip M. & Hayes, Alison J., 2009. "Measuring achievement: Changes in risk factors for cardiovascular disease in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 552-561, February.
    13. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    14. Moreno, Elías & Girón, F.J. & Vázquez-Polo, F.J. & Negrín, M.A., 2012. "Optimal healthcare decisions: The importance of the covariates in cost–effectiveness analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 512-522.
    15. Jordan Amdahl & Jose Diaz & Arati Sharma & Jinhee Park & David Chandiwana & Thomas E Delea, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    16. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    17. Jing Voon Chen & Julia L. Higle & Michael Hintlian, 2018. "A systematic approach for examining the impact of calibration uncertainty in disease modeling," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 541-561, October.
    18. Claxton, Karl & Asaria, Miqdad & Chansa, Collins & Jamison, Julian & Lomas, James & Ochalek, Jessica & Paulden, Mike, 2019. "Accounting for timing when assessing health-related policies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100038, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Helen Dakin & Sarah Wordsworth, 2013. "Cost‐Minimisation Analysis Versus Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis, Revisited," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 22-34, January.
    20. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.

    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:pone00:0188818. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.