Intermittent self catheterisation with hydrophilic, gel reservoir, and non-coated catheters: a systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most effective and cost effective type of catheter for patients performing intermittent self catheterisation in the community. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Results were incorporated into a probabilistic Markov model to compare lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane and Cinahl databases from 2002 to 18 April 2011 to identify studies comparing hydrophilic, gel reservoir, and non-coated intermittent catheters. Earlier guidelines were used to identify papers published before 2002. To capture studies comparing clean and sterile non-coated intermittent self catheterisation, each database was searched from its date of inception to 18 April 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical outcomes included symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI), bacteraemia, mortality, patient preference or comfort, and number of catheters used. The economic model included downstream complications of UTI and cost effectiveness was calculated as incremental cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the systematic review. Most were conducted in patients with spinal cord injuries, and most of the included patients were men. People using gel reservoir and hydrophilic catheters were significantly less likely to report one or more UTIs compared with sterile non-coated catheters (absolute effect for gel reservoir = 149 fewer per 1000 (95% confidence interval -7 to 198), P=0.04; absolute effect for hydrophilic = 153 fewer per 1000 (-8 to 268), P=0.04). However, there was no difference between hydrophilic and sterile non-coated catheters when outcomes were measured as mean monthly UTIs (mean difference = 0.01 (-0.11 to 0.09), P=0.84) or total UTIs at 1 year (mean difference = 0.18 (-0.50 to 0.86), P=0.60). There was little difference in the incidence of one or more UTIs for people using clean versus sterile non-coated catheters (absolute effect = 12 fewer per 1000 (-134 to 146), P=0.86). Although the most effective, gel reservoir catheters cost >£54,350 per QALY gained and are therefore not cost effective compared with clean non-coated self catheterisation. CONCLUSION: The type of catheter used for intermittent self catheterisation seems to make little difference to the risk of symptomatic UTI. Given large differences in resource use, clean non-coated catheters are most cost effective. However, because of limitations and gaps in the evidence base and the designation of non-coated catheters as single use devices, we recommend a precautionary principle should be adopted and that patients should be offered a choice between hydrophilic and gel reservoir catheters.

Evaluation of syndromic patient management algorithm for urethral discharge.

OBJECTIVE: To determine feasibility, validity, and cost effectiveness of the syndromic approach to male patients with urethral discharge in Bandung, Indonesia. METHODS: The WHO algorithm on urethral discharge with no microscopy available was evaluated. Patients presented with a complaint of urethral discharge and if discharge was confirmed the algorithm was applied. Treatment covered gonococcal and chlamydial infection (ciprofloxacin 500 mg single oral dose plus doxycycline 100 mg, twice daily orally for 7 days). The gold standard for validation was gonococcal culture and chlamydia antigen detection. RESULTS: 140 male patients with a complaint of urethral discharge were enrolled; 119 had confirmed discharge and entered the decision tree: 107 were followed and 104 (97%) were clinically cured. Of the three patients with persistent discharge, one had a purulent urethral discharge, diagnosed as gonococcal urethritis and he was probably reinfected; two patients had a serous discharge and microbiological tests were negative. Overall, 106 out of 107 patients (99%) were microbiologically cured. Sensitivity of the algorithm is 100% and its positive predictive value (PPV) is 75% or 97% if validated against gold standard microbiological tests or Gram stain, respectively. Cost per patient is rupiah (Rp)5.894 ($US2.56) for the algorithm compared with Rp43.024 ($18.70) for full microbiological diagnosis. The cost estimate for an algorithm of urethral discharge with microscopy available is Rp6.432 ($2.80) CONCLUSION: The "symptom and sign" algorithm is fully adapted to the prevailing situation in primary healthcare settings, is acceptable to healthcare workers and patients (who are effectively treated at their first visit), is highly cost effective, is 100% sensitive (no false negatives, which is not the case with microbiological diagnosis), and has a high PPV, between 75% and 97%. It is an excellent patient management tool and a sound basis for partner notification so that it should have a major impact on STD/HIV control and prevention in both men and women.