Home News Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis is cost-effective, reduces PJI following TJA

Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis is cost-effective, reduces PJI following TJA

40
0



Source/Disclosures


Disclosures:
Lipson reports no relevant financial disclosures. Please see the study for all other authors’ relevant financial disclosures.


We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

While surgeons should keep in mind the development of future antimicrobial resistance, results showed extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis is a cost-effective option for reducing prosthetic joint infection after total joint arthroplasty.

Researchers used a break-even economic model to calculate the absolute risk reduction (ARR) in infection rate necessary for extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis to be cost-effective for high-risk patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty. Based on institutional purchasing records, the cost of a 7-day course of cefadroxil was $52.08; Bactrim DS (a combination of sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim) was $1.54; and clindamycin was $6.72.


Infection

Source: Adobe Stock

With an initial infection rate of 2.1% and PJI treatment cost of $27,870 for TKAs, extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis with cefadroxil was cost-effective at an ARR of 0.187%. With an initial infection rate of 4.3% and PJI treatment cost of $34,445 for THAs, extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis with cefadroxil was cost-effective at an ARR of 0.151%. Researchers noted the ARR needed to achieve cost-effectiveness was even lower for extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis with a combination of sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim and clindamycin.

Researchers concluded that the cost-effectiveness of extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis for reducing PJI after TJA was preserved – even with varying costs of antibiotic regimens, PJI treatment costs and infection rates.

“Physicians and health care institutions can employ this model to determine if this intervention is cost-effective for their specific practice,” the researchers wrote in the study. “However, the current evidence supporting this practice is limited in quality and the cost-effectiveness of this practice should be weighed against the possibility of future developing antimicrobial resistance, which may change the value proposition and requires future investigation,” they added.

Previous articleStudy: Internet searches for abortion medications surged after Roe draft leak
Next articleKeto Breakfast Casserole with TEN variations