Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Background Point-of-care C-reactive protein (POCCRP) is a biomarker of inflammation that offers clinicians a rapid POC test to guide antibiotic prescribing decisions for acute cough and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). However, evidence that POCCRP is cost-effective is limited, particularly outside experimental settings. Aim To assess the cost-effectiveness of POCCRP as a diagnostic tool for acute cough and LRTI from the perspective of the health service. Design and setting Observational study of the presentation, management, and outcomes of patients with acute cough and LRTI in primary care settings in Norway and Sweden. Method Using hierarchical regression, data were analysed in terms of the effect on antibiotic use, cost, and patient outcomes (symptom severity after 7 and 14 days, time to recovery, and EQ-5D), while controlling for patient characteristics (self-reported symptom severity, comorbidities, and health-related quality of life) at first attendance. Results POCCRP testing is associated with non-significant positive reductions in antibiotic prescribing (P = 0.078) and increased cost (P = 0.092). Despite the uncertainty, POCCRP testing is also associated with a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of €9391. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30 000 per QALY gained, there is a 70% probability of CRP being cost-effective. Conclusion POCCRP testing is likely to provide a cost-effective diagnostic intervention both in terms of reducing antibiotic prescribing and in terms of QALYs gained. © British Journal of General Practice.

Original publication

DOI

10.3399/bjgp13X669185

Type

Journal article

Journal

British Journal of General Practice

Publication Date

01/07/2013

Volume

63