Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:54:21.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preoperative Use of Mupirocin for the Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Staphylococcus aureus Infections: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Lisa S. Young  and
Lisa G. Winston
Lisa S. Young*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
Lisa G. Winston
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California
*
669 S. Gilpin St., Denver, CO 80209 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

Staphylococcus aureus is the most common cause of healthcare-associated infections. Intranasal mupirocin treatment probably decreases S. aureus infections among colonized surgical patients. Using cost-effectiveness analysis, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of preoperative use of mupirocin for the prevention of healthcare-associated S. aureus infections.

Methods.

Three strategies were compared: (1) screen with nasal culture and give treatment to carriers, (2) give treatment to all patients without screening, and (3) neither screen nor treat. A societal perspective was taken. Adverse outcomes included bloodstream infection, pneumonia, surgical site infection, death due to underlying illness or infection, readmission, and the need for home health care. Data inputs were obtained from an extensive MEDLINE review and from publicly available government data sources. The following base-case data inputs (and ranges) for sensitivity analysis were used: rate of S. aureus carriage, 23.1% (19%-55%); efficacy ofmupirocin treatment, 51% (8%-75%); mupirocin treatment cost, $48.36 ($24.18-$57.74); and hospital costs of bloodstream infection, $25,128 ($6,194-$40,211), pneumonia, $18,366 ($5,574-$28,952), and surgical site infection $16,256 ($5,119-$22,553). Widespread use ofmupirocin has been associated with high levels of mupirocin resistance; therefore, a broad range of estimates for efficacy was tested in the sensitivity analysis.

Patients.

The target population included patients undergoing nonemergent surgery requiring postoperative hospitalization.

Results.

Both the screen-and-treat and treat-all strategies were cost saving, saving $102 per patient screened and $88 per patient treated, respectively. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, the model was robust with respect to all data inputs except for the efficacy ofmupirocin treatment. If the efficacy is less than 16.1%, then the screen-and-treat strategy is cost incurring. A treat-all strategy was more cost saving if the rate of S. aureus carriage was greater than 42.7%, the mupirocin cost was less than $29.87, or nursing compensation was greater than $64.21 per hour.

Conclusion.

Administration of mupirocin before surgery is cost saving, primarily because healthcare-associated infections are very expensive. The level of mupirocin efficacy is critical to the cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 27 , Issue 12 , December 2006 , pp. 1304 - 1312
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Kirkland, KB, Briggs, JP, Trivette, SL, Wilkinson, WE, Sexton, DJ. The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999; 20:725–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Whitehouse, JD, Friedman, ND, Kirkland, KB, Richardson, WJ, Sexton, DJ. The impact of surgical-site infections following orthopedic surgery at a community hospital and a university hospital: adverse quality of life, excess length of stay, and extra cost. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002; 23:183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Delgado-Rodriguez, M, Gomez-Ortega, A, Llorca, J, et al. Nosocomial infection, indices of intrinsic infection risk, and in-hospital mortality in general surgery. J Hosp Infect 1999; 41:203–211.Google Scholar
4. DiPiro, JT, Martindale, RG, Bakst, A, Vacani, PF, Watson, P, Miller, MT. Infection in surgical patients: effects on mortality, hospitalization, and postdischarge care. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1998; 55:777–781.Google Scholar
5. Poulsen, KB, Wachmann, CH, Bremmelgaard, A, Sorensen, AI, Raahave, D, Petersen, JV. Survival of patients with surgical wound infection: a case-control study of common surgical interventions. Br J Surg 1995; 82:208–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2003, issued August 2003. Am J Infect Control 2003;31:481–498.Google Scholar
7. Kluytmans, J, van Belkum, A, Verbrugh, H. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks. Clin Microbiol Rev 1997; 10:505–520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. von Eiff, C, Becker, K, Machka, K, Stammer, H, Peters, G. Nasal carriage as a source of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:11–16.Google Scholar
9. Wertheim, HF, Vos, MC, Ott, A, et al. Mupirocin prophylaxis against nosocomial Staphylococcus aureus infections in nonsurgical patients: a randomized study. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140:419–425.Google Scholar
10. Laupland, KB, Conly, JM. Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus colonization and prophylaxis for infection with topical intranasal mupirocin: an evidence-based review. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 37:933–938.Google Scholar
11. Kalmeijer, MD, Coertjens, H, van Nieuwland-Bollen, PM, et al. Surgical site infections in orthopedic surgery: the effect of mupirocin nasal ointment in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35:353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Kluytmans, JA, Mouton, JW, VandenBergh, MF, et al. Reduction of surgical-site infections in cardiothoracic surgery by elimination of nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus . Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996; 17:780–785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Gernaat-van der Sluis, AJ, Hoogenboom-Verdegaal, AM, Edixhoven, PJ, Spies-van Rooijen, NH. Prophylactic mupirocin could reduce orthopedic wound infections: 1,044 patients treated with mupirocin compared with 1,260 historical controls. Acta Orthop Scand 1998; 69:412–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Cimochowski, GE, Harostock, MD, Brown, R, Bernardi, M, Alonzo, N, Coyle, K. Intranasal mupirocin reduces sternal wound infection after open heart surgery in diabetics and nondiabetics. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 71:1572–1578; discussion 1578-1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Perl, TM, Cullen, JJ, Wenzel, RP, et al. Intranasal mupirocin to prevent postoperative Staphylococcus aureus infections. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:1871–1877.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. VandenBergh, MF, Kluytmans, JA, van Hout, BA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of perioperative mupirocin nasal ointment in cardiothoracic surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996; 17:786–792.Google Scholar
17. Kluytmans, J. Reduction of surgical site infections in major surgery by elimination of nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus . J Hosp Infect 1998; 40(Suppl B):S25–S29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Wilcox, MH, Hall, J, Pike, H, et al. Use of perioperative mupirocin to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) orthopaedic surgical site infections. J Hosp Infect 2003; 54:196–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Vazquez-Aragon, P, Lizan-Garcia, M, Cascales-Sanchez, P, Villar-Canovas, MT, Garcia-Olmo, D. Nosocomial infection and related risk factors in a general surgery service: a prospective study. J Infect 2003; 46:17–22.Google Scholar
20. Bates, DW, Pruess, KE, Lee, TH. How bad are bacteremia and sepsis? Outcomes in a cohort with suspected bacteremia. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155:593–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Raymond, DP, Pelletier, SJ, Crabtree, TD, Gleason, TG, Pruett, TL, Sawyer, RG. Impact of bloodstream infection on outcomes among infected surgical inpatients. Ann Surg 2001; 233:549–555.Google Scholar
22. Montravers, P, Veber, B, Auboyer, C, et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic management of nosocomial pneumonia in surgical patients: results of the Eole study. Crit Care Med 2002; 30:368–375.Google Scholar
23. Crabtree, TD, Gleason, TG, Pruett, TL, Sawyer, RG. Trends in nosocomial pneumonia in surgical patients as we approach the 21st century: a prospective analysis. Am Surg 1999; 65:706–709; discussion 710.Google Scholar
24. Greenaway, CA, Embil, J, Orr, PH, McLeod, J, Dyck, B, Nicolle, LE. Nosocomial pneumonia on general medical and surgical wards in a tertiary-care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997; 18:749–756.Google Scholar
25. Astagneau, P, Rioux, C, Golliot, F, Brucker, G. Morbidity and mortality associated with surgical site infections: results from the 1997-1999 INCISO surveillance. J Hosp Infect 2001; 48:267–274.Google Scholar
26. Jonkers, D, Elenbaas, T, Terporten, P, Nieman, F, Stobberingh, E. Prevalence of 90-days postoperative wound infections after cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003; 23:97–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Kohli, M, Yuan, L, Escobar, M, et al. A risk index for sternal surgical wound infection after cardiovascular surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:17–25.Google Scholar
28. Cohen, H. Red book 2003 drug topics: the pharmacist's trusted companion for more than a century. Montvale, NJ: Thomson PDR, 2003:224–225.Google Scholar
29. Shrestha, NK, Shermock, KM, Gordon, SM, et al. Predictive value and cost-effectiveness analysis of a rapid polymerase chain reaction for preoperative detection of nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus . Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:327–333.Google Scholar
30. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Table 15: private industry, health services, by industry and occupational group. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t15.htm. Accessed February 24, 2004.Google Scholar
31. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer costs for employee compensation. Available at: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost. Accessed February 24, 2004.Google Scholar
32. Stone, PW, Larson, E, Kawar, LN. A systematic audit of economic evidence linking nosocomial infections and infection control interventions: 1990-2000. Am J Infect Control 2002; 30:145–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Bates, DW, Yu, DT, Black, E, et al. Resource utilization among patients with sepsis syndrome. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:62–70.Google Scholar
34. Abramson, MA, Sexton, DJ. Nosocomial methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus primary bacteremia: at what costs? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999; 20:408–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Ben-Menachem, T, McCarthy, BD, Fogel, R, et al. Prophylaxis for stress-related gastrointestinal hemorrhage: a cost effectiveness analysis. Crit Care Med 1996; 24:338–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Shorr, AF, O'Malley, PC. Continuous subglottic suctioning for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: potential economic implications. Chest 2001; 119:228–235.Google Scholar
37. Warren, DK, Shukla, SJ, Olsen, MA, et al. Outcome and attributable cost of ventilator-associated pneumonia among intensive care unit patients in a suburban medical center. Crit Care Med 2003; 31:1312–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Engemann, JJ, Carmeli, Y, Cosgrove, SE, et al. Adverse clinical and economic outcomes attributable to methicillin resistance among patients with Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 36:592–598.Google Scholar
39. Perencevich, EN, Sands, KE, Cosgrove, SE, Guadagnoli, E, Meara, E, Platt, R. Health and economic impact of surgical site infections diagnosed after hospital discharge. Emerg Infect Dis 2003; 9:196–203.Google Scholar
40. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 100% Medicare provider analysis and review (MEDPAR) inpatient hospital fiscal year 2003, short stay inpatient by state. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistic/medpar/drgstate03.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2004.Google Scholar
41. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer price index for all urban customers. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/data/. Accessed February 25, 2004.Google Scholar
42. Martin, JN, Perdreau-Remington, F, Kartalija, M, et al. A randomized clinical trial of mupirocin in the eradication of Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage in human immunodeficiency virus disease. J Infect Dis 1999; 180:896–899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43. Weinstein, MC, Siegel, JE, Gold, MR, Kamlet, MS, Russell, LB. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996; 276:1253–1258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. Siegel, JE, Weinstein, MC, Russell, LB, Gold, MR. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996; 276:1339–1341.Google Scholar
45. Russell, LB, Gold, MR, Siegel, JE, Daniels, N, Weinstein, MC. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996; 276:1172–1177.Google Scholar
46. Perez-Fontan, M, Rosales, M, Rodriguez-Carmona, A, Falcon, TG, Valdes, F. Mupirocin resistance after long-term use for Staphylococcus aureus colonization in patients undergoing chronic peritoneal dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 39:337–341.Google Scholar
47. Vasquez, JE, Walker, ES, Franzus, BW, Overbay, BK, Reagan, DR, Sarubbi, FA. The epidemiology of mupirocin resistance among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at a Veterans' Affairs hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21:459–464.Google Scholar
48. Miller, MA, Dascal, A, Portnoy, J, Mendelson, J. Development of mupirocin resistance among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus after widespread use of nasal mupirocin ointment. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996; 17:811–813.Google Scholar
49. Chaves, F, Garcia-Martinez, J, de Miguel, S, Otero, JR. Molecular characterization of resistance to mupirocin in methicillin-susceptible and -resistant isolates of Staphylococcus aureus from nasal samples. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42:822–824.Google Scholar
50. Upton, A, Lang, S, Heffernan, H. Mupirocin and Staphylococcus aureus: a recent paradigm of emerging antibiotic resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003; 51:613–617.Google Scholar
51. Mulvey, MR, MacDougall, L, Cholin, B, Horsman, G, Fidyk, M, Woods, S. Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Canada. Emerg Infect Dis 2005; 11:844–850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52. Harris, RA, Washington, AE, Nease, RF Jr, Kuppermann, M. Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold. Lancet 2004; 363:276–282.Google Scholar
53. Ramsey, S, Willke, R, Briggs, A, et al. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report, 2005. Available at: http://www.ispor.org/workpaper/clinical_trial.asp. Accessed February 25, 2004.Google Scholar
54. American Thoracic Society. Understanding costs and cost-effectiveness in critical care: report from the Second American Thoracic Society Workshop on Outcomes Research. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165:540–550.Google Scholar
55. Delgado-Hachmeister, JE, Graviss, EA. Intranasal mupirocin to prevent postoperative infections. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1207–1208.Google Scholar
56. Farr, BM. Mupirocin to prevent S. aureus infections. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:1905–1906.Google Scholar
57. Suzuki, Y, Kamigaki, T, Fujino, Y, Tominaga, M, Ku, Y, Kuroda, Y. Randomized clinical trial of preoperative intranasal mupirocin to reduce surgical-site infection after digestive surgery. Br J Surg 2003; 90:1072–1075.Google Scholar
58. Perl, TM, Zimmerman, MB. Intranasal mupirocin to prevent postoperative infections. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1207–1208.Google Scholar