Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of cost-effectiveness analysis.

From: Cost-effectiveness of strategies to control the spread of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in hospitals: a modelling study

Strategy

Total cost/1000 admissions (€) (SD)

Increase** from the baseline (%)

Nb of CPE acquisitions/1000 admissions (SD)

Reduction** from the baseline (%)

Δ Cost/1000 admissions (€)

Δ Nb of CPE acquisitions/1000 admissions

ICER (€/avoided case)

Baseline

32,050 (2443)

–

0.93 (1.50)

    

1. TS + CP

37,304 (5567)

16.4

0.78 (1.31)

16.5

  

Dominated*

2. TS + CP + single room

37,509 (5636)

17.0

0.68 (1.24)

26.6

  

Dominated*

8. TS + CP + single room + WSC

38,455 (6866)

20.0

0.66 (1.22)

28.8

  

Dominated*

7. TS + CP + WSC

38,560 (7285)

20.3

0.78 (1.32)

16.4

  

Dominated*

3. TS + DNS

42,320 (10,916)

32.0

0.33 (0.86)

63.9

10,270

0.59

17,407

9. TS + DNS + WSC

42,934 (11,641)

34.0

0.31 (0.79)

66.4

614

0.02

30,700

4. US + CP

86,165 (6716)

168.8

0.72 (1.26)

22.1

  

Dominated*

11.US + CP + single room + WSC

87,151 (7931)

171.9

0.62 (1.16)

33.0

  

Dominated*

10.US + CP + WSC

87,231 (8245)

172.2

0.72 (1.22)

22.2

  

Dominated*

5. US + CP + single room

87,345 (7204)

172.5

0.60 (1.17)

43.8

  

Dominated*

6. US + DNS

95,427 (13,446)

197.7

0.02 (0.19)

97.7

  

Dominated*

12.US + DNS + WSC

95,561 (13,553)

198.2

0.02 (0.18)

97.9

52,627

0.29

181, 472

  1. TS targeted screening, US universal screening, CP contact precautions, DNS dedicated staff, WS weekly screening
  2. *Dominated: a strategy is dominated it means that resulted in higher costs but less benefit, or had a higher ICER than that of a more effective
  3. **The Increase/Reduction from the baseline is calculated as: |Strategy’s value—Baseline value|/Baseline value * 100