Cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis for the management of recurrent urinary tract infections in secondary care: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of methenamine hippurate compared with antibiotic prophylaxis in the management of recurrent urinary tract infections. DESIGN: Multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. SETTING: Eight centres in the UK, recruiting from June 2016 to June 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥18 years with recurrent urinary tract infections, requiring prophylactic treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Women were randomised to receive once-daily antibiotic prophylaxis or twice-daily methenamine hippurate for 12 months. Treatment allocation was not masked and crossover between arms was allowed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 18 months. All costs were collected from a UK National Health Service perspective. QALYs were estimated based on responses to the EQ-5D-5L administered at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months. Incremental costs and QALYs were estimated using an adjusted analysis which controlled for observed and unobserved characteristics. Stochastic sensitivity analysis was used to illustrate uncertainty on a cost-effectiveness plane and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. A sensitivity analysis, not specified in the protocol, considered the costs associated with antibiotic resistance. RESULTS: Data on 205 participants were included in the economic analysis. On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly (-£40; 95% CI: -684 to 603) and more effective (0.014 QALYs; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.07) than antibiotic prophylaxis. Over the range of values considered for an additional QALY, the probability of methenamine hippurate being considered cost-effective ranged from 51% to 67%. CONCLUSIONS: On average, methenamine hippurate was less costly and more effective than antibiotic prophylaxis but these results are subject to uncertainty. Methenamine hippurate is more likely to be considered cost-effective when the benefits of reduced antibiotic use were included in the analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70219762.

Use of antibiotics in nursing homes--surveillance with different methods.

BACKGROUND: Residents in nursing homes have a heightened risk of developing infections that should be treated with antibiotics. Inappropriate use of antibiotics may generate drug-related problems and increase resistance. In this study, we describe the use of antibiotics in nursing homes on the basis of prevalence surveys and drug sales statistics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five nursing homes in Oslo participated in two one-day surveys in 2009. All use of systemic antibiotics was registered. The data collection was undertaken according to a protocol developed by the European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption (ESAC) Network and was part of a European study. The nursing homes' drug sales statistics for systemic antibiotics during 2009, distributed by the number of bed days for each nursing home, were estimated. Information on indications for each antibiotic from the prevalence surveys was collated with sales data to achieve an estimate of how the purchased antibiotics were used. RESULTS: The prevalence surveys showed that more than 8% of the residents received antibiotics. Prophylactic treatment accounted for 33% of the prescriptions. A prevalence of antibiotic use of 10% was estimated from the drug sales statistics. Urinary tract infection was the most frequently registered indication. Pivmecillinam and methenamine were most frequently prescribed and most frequently purchased. Most courses of treatment were prescribed in accordance with the national guidelines for antibiotic use. INTERPRETATION: The results from the drug sales statistics concurred well with the prevalence surveys, and the methods can thus be relevant for purposes of monitoring the use of antibiotics.

Utility of Gomori methenamine silver stains in bronchoalveolar lavage specimens.

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) with Gomori methenamine silver (GMS) stain is commonly used to detect Pneumocystis carinii and fungal organisms as causes of infectious pulmonic disease in immunosuppressed patients. However, several reports have indicated that GMS stains are not any more sensitive than conventional cytologic stains in detecting Pneumocystis organisms in select patient populations, such as those with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). To examine the utility of GMS stains in our laboratory, we retrospectively reviewed 243 BALs from 188 patients. Sensitivity of the GMS stain for Pneumocystis and for fungi detection was 100%. Sensitivity for Pneumocystis and for fungi detection by Papanicolaou stain alone was 79% and 88%, respectively; by Diff-Quik stain alone it was 68% and 88%, respectively; and by combined Papanicolaou and Diff-Quik stains it was 79% and 100%, respectively. In four additional cases, fungi were detected by other methods (culture, biopsy) and not by BAL. The GMS stain result was correlated with a number of risk variables to determine which variables were associated with GMS positivity. Using stepwise logistic regression, Pneumocystis positivity by GMS stain correlated (P < 0.0001) only with the variable of history of AIDS or AIDS risk factors. Fungal organism positivity by GMS stain correlated (P = 0.02) only with the variable of history of BAL positivity for fungus. Cost savings analyses were performed, estimating the cost of the GMS stain at $45 (total cost of GMS in 243 BALs was $10,935).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)