Evaluating the use of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the workup of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a cost-utility analysis

Authors:

• Ong, Sean W.X.
• Zhabokritsky, Alice
• Daneman, Nick
• Tong, Steven Y.C.
• Wijeysundera, Harindra C.

Details:

Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 29, Issue 11, 2023-11-30

Article Link: Click here

Objectives The use of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in the evaluation of patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia can improve the diagnosis of infectious foci and guide clinical management. We aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of PET/CT among adults hospitalized with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Methods A cost-utility analysis was conducted from the healthcare payer perspective using a probabilistic Markov cohort model assessing three diagnostic strategies: (a) PET/CT in all patients, (b) PET/CT in high-risk patients only, and (c) routine diagnostic workup. Primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs in Canadian dollars, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate parameter uncertainty. Results Routine workup resulted in an average of 16.64 QALYs from the time of diagnosis at a lifetime cost of $209 060/patient. This was dominated by PET/CT in high-risk patients (i.e. greater effectiveness at lower costs) with average 16.88 QALYs at a cost of $199 552. Compared with PET/CT in high-risk patients only, PET/CT for all patients cost on average $11 960 more but resulted in 0.14 more QALYs, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $83 500 (cost per additional QALY gained); however, there was a high degree of uncertainty comparing these two strategies. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY, PET/CT in high-risk patients was the most cost-effective strategy in 58.6% of simulations vs. 37.9% for PET/CT in all patients. Discussion : Our findings suggest that a strategy of using PET/CT in high-risk patients is more cost-effective than no PET/CT. Randomized controlled trials should be conducted to evaluate the use of PET/CT in different patient groups.