Abstract
Introduction Sepsis accounts for up to 50% of neonatal deaths in resource-limited countries. Accurate and timely diagnosis could improve clinical outcomes, reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, and provide healthcare cost savings. We aimed to identify the minimum technical specifications and cost required of a point-of-care test (POCT) for neonatal sepsis to be clinically useful in hospital and community levels in low-resource settings.
Methods We modeled the diagnosis and treatment of two cohorts: hospitalized neonates and infants presenting to primary health care facilities with suspected sepsis. We compared health outcomes, including mortality, length of hospital stays, and acquisition of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), under a POCT compared to empiric treatment and blood culture across varying test performance, prevalence of bacterial infection and discharge eligibility. A threshold health economic analysis was performed to determine the allowable POCT price to remain cost neutral to the healthcare system.
Results A POCT could lead to a net reduction in neonatal deaths at both the hospital level (up to 19% of deaths averted compared to baseline) and community level (up to 76% deaths averted) through faster initiation of appropriate therapy and reducing unnecessary hospitalizations and HAIs. Healthcare costs could be reduced substantially with implementation of a POCT (17%–43% of baseline costs saved in hospital and 48%–81% saved in primary healthcare settings across the range of analyzed scenarios), suggesting a POCT costing up to $21 in hospitals and $3 in community settings could be cost neutral.
Conclusions A POCT for neonatal sepsis, even with imperfect accuracy, could substantially improve clinical outcomes by improving time to diagnosis, while also supporting antibiotic de-escalation and stewardship and lowering healthcare costs. However, high clinical sensitivity is required to avoid causing deaths through missed diagnoses due to false negative results and delayed antibiotic initiation.
What is already known on this topic?It is known that neonatal sepsis and possible serious bacterial infections in infants are a serious cause of mortality; however, diagnosis to provide proper treatment and care remains difficult.
What does this study add?This study generates evidence on what the technical specifications and costs are required of a novel point-of-care test through mathematical modeling.
How might this study affect research, practice, or policy?These results can be used as criteria to guide the development of a novel point-of-care test for neonatal sepsis and bacterial infection in infants.
Competing Interest Statement
FF is a trustee of Neotree, a UK registered charity that provides technology, software information, education and support to newborn healthcare workers and medical practitioners in low resource settings (charity number: 1186748). All other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to publish the results.
Funding Statement
This work was supported via FIND by the UK Department of Health and Social Care as part of the Global AMR Innovation Fund (GAMRIF) and with support from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of the Netherlands. GAMRIF is a One Health UK aid fund that supports research and development around the world to reduce the threat of antimicrobial resistance in humans, animals and the environment for the benefit of people in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UK Department of Health and Social Care. FF is supported by a Wellcome Trust Early Career Award (227076/Z/23/Z).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This research utilizes publicly available data from the literature; therefore, formal ethical approval was not required. However, ethical considerations were included throughout the research process as transparency was maintained in the reporting of our modeling methodology. This statement affirms our commitment to ethical conduct in research, even in the absence of formal approval.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos