Preoperative use of mupirocin for the prevention of healthcare-associated Staphylococcus aureus infections: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
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 of mupirocin treatment, 51% (8%-75%); mupirocin treatment cost, 48.36 US Dollars (24.18-57.74 US Dollars); and hospital costs of bloodstream infection, 25,128 US Dollars (6,194-40,211 US Dollars), pneumonia, 18,366 US Dollars (5,574-28,952 US Dollars), and surgical site infection 16,256 US Dollars (5,119-22,553 US Dollars). Widespread use of mupirocin has been associated with high levels of mupirocin resistance; therefore, a broad range of estimates for efficacy was tested in the sensitivity analysis.


METHODS
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 US Dollars per patient screened and 88 US Dollars per patient treated, respectively. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, the model was robust with respect to all data inputs except for the efficacy of mupirocin 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 US Dollars, or nursing compensation was greater than 64.21 US Dollars per hour.


CONCLUSIONS
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.
Young
Lisa S
LS
Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. Lisa.Young@UCHSC.edu
Winston
Lisa G
LG
D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D017046:Cost Savings; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003428:Cross Infection / Q000517:prevention & control; D003663:Decision Trees; D016712:Mupirocin / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D009666:Nose / Q000382:microbiology; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013203:Staphylococcal Infections / Q000191:economics / Q000517:prevention & control*; D013211:Staphylococcus aureus / Q000302:isolation & purification; D013530:Surgical Wound Infection / Q000517:prevention & control*
D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents; D016712:Mupirocin