Cost-effectiveness of taurolidine locks to prevent recurrent catheter-related blood stream infections in adult patients receiving home parenteral nutrition: a 2-year mirror-image study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The use of long-term taurolidine locks (LTTL) seems to be effective in preventing catheter-related blood stream infections (CRBSI), especially in patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN). This work targets the cost-effectiveness of LTTL in a cohort of adult HPN patients. METHODS: A monocentric mirror-image design study was conducted in our referral centre among long-term HPN patients experiencing recurrent CRBSI. From 7th January 2011, LTTL were started after the third CRBSI episode within 12 months. CRBSI data was prospectively collected until 7th January 2013, in the same way as it had retrospectively been done before initiating LTTL. A cost-effective analysis was conducted to estimate the incremental costs and effects on CRBSI with LTTL. The efficacy of LTTL on CRBSI rate was assessed over 1000 days of catheter use. RESULTS: A total of 31,100 catheter days were analysed in 37 patients (median [interquartile range (IQR)]) aged 58 [42-68] years. The mean ± SD proven CRBSI rate was 3.18 ± 3.51 per 1000 catheter days before the introduction of LTTL and 0.39 ± 1.50 per 1000 catheter days after its introduction (p < 0.0001). Considering both proven and probable CRBSI requiring hospital management, LTTL reduced by (mean [bootstrap CI 95%]) -2.63 [-3.26 to -2.06] infections per patient (from 2.89 [2.31 to 3.49] before to 0.26 [0.13 to 0.41] after) as well as incremental costs by -7 258 [-10 450 to -4 016] € (from 11 176 [8 004 to 14 968] € before to 3 918 [2 390 to 5 445] € after). CONCLUSION: Implementing LTTL to prevent recurrent CRBSI is cost-effective by dramatically decreasing their incidence.

Clinical and economic impact of the taurolidine lock on home parenteral nutrition.

INTRODUCTION: catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) are one of the most serious concerns in patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) which involve high morbidity and cost for the healthcare system. In the last years, taurolidine lock has proven to be beneficial in the prevention of CRBSI; however, the evidence of its efficiency is limited. OBJECTIVE: to determine if taurolidine lock is a cost-effective intervention in patients on HPN. MATERIALS AND METHODS: retrospective study in patients on HPN with taurolidine lock. We compared the CRBSI rate and cost of its complications before and during taurolidine lock. RESULTS: thirteen patients, six (46%) males and seven (54%) females, with a mean age of 61.08 (SD = 14.18) years received taurolidine lock. The total days of catheterization pre and per-taurolidine were 12,186 and 5,293, respectively. The underlying disease was benign in five patients (38.5%) and malignant in eight (61.5%). The CRBSI rate pre vs per-taurolidine was 3.12 vs 0.76 episodes per 1,000 catheter days (p = 0.0058). When the indication was a high CRBSI rate, this was 9.72 vs 0.39 (p < 0.001) in pre and per-taurolidine period respectively. No differences have been observed in the occlusion rates. None of the patients reported any adverse effects. The total cost of CRBSI in the pre-taurolidine period was 151,264.14 euros vs 24,331.19 euros in the per-taurolidine period. CONCLUSIONS: our study shows that taurolidine lock is a cost-effective intervention in patients on HPN with high risk of CRBSI.

Clinical and economic impact of the taurolidine lock on home parenteral nutrition / Impacto clínico y económico de la utilización de taurolidina en pacientes con nutrición parenteral domiciliaria

Introduction: catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) are one of the most serious concerns in patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) which involve high morbidity and cost for the healthcare system. In the last years, taurolidine lock has proven to be beneficial in the prevention of CRBSI; however, the evidence of its efficiency is limited. Objective: to determine if taurolidine lock is a cost-effective intervention in patients on HPN. Materials and methods: retrospective study in patients on HPN with taurolidine lock. We compared the CRBSI rate and cost of its complications before and during taurolidine lock. Results: thirteen patients, six (46%) males and seven (54%) females, with a mean age of 61.08 (SD = 14.18) years received taurolidine lock. The total days of catheterization pre and per-taurolidine were 12,186 and 5,293, respectively. The underlying disease was benign in five patients (38.5%) and malignant in eight (61.5%). The CRBSI rate pre vs per-taurolidine was 3.12 vs 0.76 episodes per 1,000 catheter days (p = 0.0058). When the indication was a high CRBSI rate, this was 9.72 vs 0.39 (p < 0.001) in pre and per-taurolidine period respectively. No differences have been observed in the occlusion rates. None of the patients reported any adverse effects. The total cost of CRBSI in the pre-taurolidine period was 151,264.14 euros vs 24,331.19 euros in the per-taurolidine period. Conclusions: our study shows that taurolidine lock is a cost-effective intervention in patients on HPN with high risk of CRBSI

Introducción: las infecciones asociadas al catéter (IAC) son una de las complicaciones más serias en pacientes con nutrición parenteral domiciliara (NPD), generando una alta morbilidad y costes sanitarios. En los últimos años, el sellado con taurolidina ha demostrado ser eficaz en su prevención, si bien la evidencia en cuanto a su eficiencia es escasa. Objetivo: determinar si el sellado del catéter con taurolidina es una intervención coste-efectiva en pacientes con NPD. Materiales y métodos: estudio retrospectivo de pacientes con NPD que recibieron sellados con taurolidina. Comparamos la incidencia de IAC antes y durante el tratamiento y los costes asociados. Resultados: el estudio incluyó trece pacientes, seis (46%) varones y siete (54%) mujeres, con edad media de 61,08 (± 14,18) años y un seguimiento de 12.186 y 5.293 días antes y durante el uso de taurolidina. La enfermedad de base era benigna en cinco pacientes (38,5%) y maligna en ocho (61,5%). La tasa de IAC antes y durante el sellado con taurolidina fue de 3,12 vs. 0,76 episodios por 1.000/días de catéter (p = 0,0058). Cuando la indicación fue por alta tasa de IAC, esta fue de 9,72 vs. 0,39 (p < 0,001) episodios por 1.000/días de catéter antes y durante el tratamiento. No hubo diferencias en la tasa de oclusión del catéter en ambos periodos. No se reportaron efectos adversos. El coste total de las IAC antes y durante el uso de taurolidina fue de 151.264,14 euros vs. 24.331,19 euros

Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition.

BACKGROUND: The catheter lock solutions 2% taurolidine and 0.9% saline are both used to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in home parenteral nutrition patients. AIMS: To compare the effectiveness and safety of taurolidine and saline. METHODS: This multicentre double-blinded trial randomly assigned home parenteral nutrition patients to use either 2% taurolidine or 0.9% saline for 1 year. Patients were stratified in a new catheter group and a pre-existing catheter group. Primary outcome was the rate of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days in the new catheter group and pre-existing catheter group, separately. RESULTS: We randomised 105 patients, of which 102 were analysed as modified intention-to-treat population. In the new catheter group, rates of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days were 0.29 and 1.49 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-0.71; P = 0.009). In the pre-existing catheter group, rates of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days were 0.39 and 1.32 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.03-1.82; P = 0.25). Excluding one outlier patient in the taurolidine arm, mean costs per patient were $1865 for taurolidine and $4454 for saline (P = 0.03). Drug-related adverse events were rare and generally mild. CONCLUSIONS: In the new catheter group, taurolidine showed a clear decrease in CRBSI rate. In the pre-existing catheter group, no superiority of taurolidine could be demonstrated, most likely due to underpowering. Overall, taurolidine reduced the risk for CRBSIs by more than four times. Given its favourable safety and cost profile, taurolidine locking should be considered as an additional strategy to prevent CRBSIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01826526.

Taurolidine-based catheter lock regimen significantly reduces overall costs, infection, and dysfunction rates of tunneled hemodialysis catheters.

Catheter-related infections and dysfunction are the main catheter complications causing morbidity and mortality in hemodialysis patients. However, there are no consistent data for the choice of catheter lock solutions for tunneled hemodialysis lines. In this prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, two lock regimens using three commercial catheter lock solutions were compared in 106 hemodialysis patients with a newly inserted tunneled central catheter. In the taurolidine group, TauroLock™-Hep500 was used twice per week and TauroLock™-U25,000 once a week. In the citrate group, a four percent citrate solution was used after each dialysis. Both groups were compared regarding catheter-related infections, catheter dysfunction, and costs. Over a period of 15,690 catheter days, six catheter-related infections occurred in six of 52 patients in the taurolidine group, but 18 occurred in 13 of 54 patients in the citrate group, corresponding to 0.67 and 2.7 episodes of catheter-related infections per 1000 catheter days, respectively (Incidence Rate Ratio 0.25, 95% confidence interval, 0.09 to 0.63). Catheter dysfunction rates were significantly lower in the taurolidine group (18.7 vs. 44.3/1000 catheter days) and alteplase rescue significantly more frequent in the citrate group (9.8 vs. 3.8/1000 catheter days). These differences provided significant catheter-related cost savings of 43% in the taurolidine group vs. citrate group when overall expenses per patient and year were compared. Thus, use of taurolidine-based catheter lock solutions containing heparin and urokinase significantly reduced complications related to tunneled hemodialysis catheters when compared to four percent citrate solution and was overall more cost-efficient.