Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies of severe bacterial infection in infants with fever without a source

15Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Introduction: Serious bacterial infections in infants under 2-years-of-age with fever without a source remains, despite advances in vaccination, a matter of concern for both physicians and parents. Having cost-effectiveness information is relevant to guide decision making in clinical practice in this scenario. Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of four different strategies of screening in Argentina for serious bacterial infection in children presenting with fever without a source. Materials and methods: We designed a decision tree to model a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 children with fever without a source. We compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of four strategies to detect serious bacterial infection: Rochester criteria + C reactive protein test, Rochester criteria + procalcitonin test, Rochester criteria, and expectant observation. Results: Rochester criteria + C reactive protein test was the most cost-effective strategy with USD$ 784 for each correctly diagnosed case versus USD$ 839 of Rochester criteria + procalcitonin test, USD$ 1,116 of expectant observation or USD$ 1,193 of Rochester criteria. When the probability of serious bacterial infections was equal or less than 14%, the strategy of choice was expectant observation. Conclusions: The Rochester criteria + C reactive protein test was the most cost-effective strategy to detect serious bacterial infection in one to three months old children with fever without a source. However, in low risk settings for such infection, the strategy of choice is expectant observation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Buendía, J. A., Sánchez-Villamil, J. P., & Urman, G. (2016). Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies of severe bacterial infection in infants with fever without a source. Biomedica, 36(3), 406–414. https://doi.org/10.7705/biomedica.v36i3.2718

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free