Cost-effectiveness of rapid, ICU-based, syndromic PCR in hospital-acquired pneumonia: analysis of the INHALE WP3 multi-centre RCT
No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Wagner A.P.
Enne V.
Gant V.
Stirling S.
Barber J.A.
Livermore D.M.
Turner D.A.
Zhao X.
Williams K.
Winmill H.
Check for full-text access
Issue Date
2025
Type
Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
Background: Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP and VAP) are pneumonias arising > 48 h after admission or intubation respectively. Conventionally, HAP/VAP patients are given broad-spectrum empiric antibiotics at clinical diagnosis, refined after 48-72 h, once microbiology results become available. Molecular tests offer swifter results, potentially improving patient care. To investigate whether this potential is realisable, we conducted a pragmatic multi-centre RCT ('INHALE WP3') of rapid, syndromic polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in ICU HAP/VAP compared with standard of care. As the use of molecular tests impact on hospital resources, it is important to consider their potential value-for-money to make fully informed decisions. Consequently, INHALE WP3 included an economic evaluation, presented here. Its aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of an in-ICU PCR (bioMerieux BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel) in HAP/VAP, informing whether to implement such technology in routine NHS care. Method(s): We collected data on patient resource use and costs. These data were combined with INHALE WP3's two primary outcome measures: antibiotic stewardship at 24 h and clinical cure at 14 days. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out using regression models adjusting for site. Sensitivity analyses explored assumptions and sub-group analyses explored differential impacts. Result(s): We found lower total ICU costs (including PCR costs) in the intervention (PCR-guided therapy) group. Average costs were 40,951 for standard of care compared with 33,149 for the intervention group, a difference of - 7,802 (95% CI: - 15,696, 92). For antibiotic stewardship, the PCR-guided therapy was both less costly and more effective than routine patient management. For clinical cure, we did not find PCR-guided therapy to be cost-effective due to fewer cases being cured in the intervention group. Conclusion(s): We found lower average ICU costs with the Pneumonia Panel. The pneumonia panel was cost-effective in terms of antibiotic stewardship, but not clinical cure. Trial registration: Registered as ISRCTN16483855 on 5th August 2019. Copyright © The Author(s) 2025.
Description
Citation
Publisher
License
Journal
Critical Care
Volume
29
Issue
1