English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  Methicillin-sensitive  Staphylococcus aureus  (MSSA) bacteremia is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and hospitalization costs. Cefazolin and antistaphylococcal penicillins (ASPs), such as nafcillin, are the preferred treatments for MSSA bacteremia. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of each approach.    Methods  We constructed a decision-analytic model comparing the use of cefazolin with ASPs for the treatment of MSSA bacteremia. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating deaths averted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty was addressed by plotting cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds.    Results  In the base-case analysis, the cost associated with the cefazolin strategy was $38 863.1, and the associated probability of survival was 0.91. For the ASP strategy, the cost was $48 578.8, and the probability of survival was 0.81. The incremental difference in cost between the 2 strategies was $9715.7, with hospital length of stay being the main driver of cost, and the incremental difference in effectiveness was 0.10. Overall, cefazolin results in savings of $97 156.8 per death averted (ICER, $–97 156.8/death averted). In the probabilistic analysis, at a willingness-to-pay of $50 000, cefazolin had a 68% chance of being cost-effective compared with ASPs. In cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, the cefazolin strategy was cost-effective in 73.5%–81.8% of simulations compared with ASP for a willingness-to-pay ranging up to $50 000.    Conclusions  The use of cefazolin is a cost-effective strategy for the treatment of MSSA bacteremia and, when clinically appropriate, this strategy results in considerable health care cost-savings.

open forum infectious diseases

The Cost-effectiveness of Cefazolin Compared With Antistaphylococcal Penicillins for the Treatment of Methicillin-Sensitive<i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>Bacteremia

The Cost-effectiveness of Cefazolin Compared With Antistaphylococcal Penicillins for the Treatment of Methicillin-SensitiveStaphylococcus aureusBacteremia