Cost-effectiveness of screening for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital in Hong Kong: a real-world analysis of data from 2015 to 2024

BACKGROUND: Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) are a major healthcare-associated threat due to multidrug resistance, gastrointestinal colonization, and hospital transmission. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CPE screening using real-world data from 2015 to 2024. METHODS: We conducted a healthcare provider-perspective economic evaluation at Queen Mary Hospital, using electronic health records and hospital data. Screening episodes, clinical outcomes, lengths of stay, and costs (laboratory testing, staffing, personal protective equipment, and disinfection) were analyzed. We calculated the number needed to screen (NNS), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for infection prevention, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Among 375,213 hospitalization episodes in which CPE testing was performed (447,745 tests), 10,046 (2.7%) were positive; 390 (3.9%) were clinical infections and 9,656 (96.1%) colonizations. After patient-level deduplication (149,965 individuals), 3,628 (2.4%) were CPE-positive, with 153 clinical infections. Mean cost per CPE infection was US$35,290 and per colonization US$7,721. Annual screening program cost was US$1,487,969. An estimated 63.6 infections were averted and 47.8 QALYs gained annually (NNS = 590). Compared with no screening, it was cost-saving (annual saving US$757,604). Sensitivity analyses showed NNS most sensitive to screening effectiveness (-40.9% to +59.2%); screening remained dominant except at lower limit of effectiveness (ICER = US$1,958; cost/QALY = US$2,048). Worst-case scenario ICER was US$31,019 (cost/QALY = US$29,831). All values were below the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness threshold of US$54,301 (Hong Kong gross domestic product/capita). CONCLUSION: CPE screening was cost-saving and highly cost-effective, remaining robust across sensitivity analyses. These findings support sustained screening in high-volume tertiary settings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Published
2026-10-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2026.10554
Primary Topic
Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cost-effectiveness of screening for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital in Hong Kong: a real-world analysis of data from 2015 to 2024

Enoch K. Hsu, Vincent Chi‐Chung Cheng, Kelvin Hei‐Yeung Chiu, Shuk‐Ching Wong et al.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
article

Cost-effectiveness of screening for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital in Hong Kong: a real-world analysis of data from 2015 to 2024

Enoch K. Hsu, Vincent Chi‐Chung Cheng, Kelvin Hei‐Yeung Chiu, Shuk‐Ching Wong, Kwok‐Yung Yuen, Edwin Kwan-Yeung Chiu, Edmond Siu-Keung Ma, Simon Yung-Chun So
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) are a major healthcare-associated threat due to multidrug resistance, gastrointestinal colonization, and hospital transmission. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CPE screening using real-world data from 2015 to 2024. METHODS: We conducted a healthcare provider-perspective economic evaluation at Queen Mary Hospital, using electronic health records and hospital data. Screening episodes, clinical outcomes, lengths of stay, and costs (laboratory testing, staffing, personal protective equipment, and disinfection) were analyzed. We calculated the number needed to screen (NNS), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for infection prevention, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Among 375,213 hospitalization episodes in which CPE testing was performed (447,745 tests), 10,046 (2.7%) were positive; 390 (3.9%) were clinical infections and 9,656 (96.1%) colonizations. After patient-level deduplication (149,965 individuals), 3,628 (2.4%) were CPE-positive, with 153 clinical infections. Mean cost per CPE infection was US$35,290 and per colonization US$7,721. Annual screening program cost was US$1,487,969. An estimated 63.6 infections were averted and 47.8 QALYs gained annually (NNS = 590). Compared with no screening, it was cost-saving (annual saving US$757,604). Sensitivity analyses showed NNS most sensitive to screening effectiveness (-40.9% to +59.2%); screening remained dominant except at lower limit of effectiveness (ICER = US$1,958; cost/QALY = US$2,048). Worst-case scenario ICER was US$31,019 (cost/QALY = US$29,831). All values were below the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness threshold of US$54,301 (Hong Kong gross domestic product/capita). CONCLUSION: CPE screening was cost-saving and highly cost-effective, remaining robust across sensitivity analyses. These findings support sustained screening in high-volume tertiary settings.

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Queen Mary Hospital (CN), University of Hong Kong (HK)
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.