Cost-Effectiveness Studies in the ICU: A Systematic Review

Association between hospital spending and in-hospital mortality of patients with sepsis based on a Japanese nationwide medical claims database study

Background

The effect of hospital spending on the mortality rate of patients with sepsis has not yet been fully elucidated. We hypothesized that hospitals that consume more medical resources would have lower mortality rates among patients with sepsis.

Methods

This retrospective study used administrative data from 2010 to 2017. The enrolled hospitals were divided into quartiles based on average daily medical cost per sepsis case. The primary and secondary outcomes were the average in-hospital mortality rate of patients with sepsis and the effective cost per survivor among the enrolled hospitals, respectively. A multiple regression model was used to determine the significance of the differences among hospital categories to adjust for baseline imbalances.

Results

Among 997 hospitals enrolled in this study, the crude in-hospital mortality rates were 15.7% and 13.2% in the lowest and highest quartiles of hospital spending, respectively. After adjusting for confounding factors, the highest hospital spending group demonstrated a significantly lower in-hospital mortality rate than the lowest hospital spending group (coefficient = -0.025, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.034 to -0.015; p < 0.0001). Similarly, the highest hospital spending group was associated with a significantly higher effective cost per survivor than the lowest hospital spending group (coefficient = 77.7, 95% CI 73.1 to 82.3; p < 0.0001). In subgroup analyses, hospitals with a small or medium number of beds demonstrated a consistent pattern with the primary test, whereas those with a large number of beds or academic affiliations displayed no association.

Conclusions

Using a nationwide Japanese medical claims database, this study indicated that hospitals with greater expenditures were associated with a superior survival rate and a higher effective cost per survivor in patients with sepsis than those with lower expenditures. In contrast, no correlations between hospital spending and mortality were observed in hospitals with a large number of beds or academic affiliations.

How environmental impact is considered in economic evaluations of critical care: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Health care is a major contributor to climate change, and critical care is one of the sector's highest carbon emitters. Health economic evaluations form an important component of critical care and may be useful in identifying economically efficient and environmentally sustainable strategies. The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesise available literature on whether and how environmental impact is considered in health economic evaluations of critical care.

METHODS

A robust scoping review methodology was used to identify studies reporting on environmental impact in health economic evaluations of critical care. We searched six academic databases to locate health economic evaluations, costing studies and life cycle assessments of critical care from 1993 to present.

RESULTS

Four studies met the review's inclusion criteria. Of the 278 health economic evaluations of critical care identified, none incorporated environmental impact into their assessments. Most included studies (n = 3/4) were life cycle assessments, and the remaining study was a prospective observational study. Life cycle assessments used a combination of process-based data collection and modelling to incorporate environmental impact into their economic assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Health economic evaluations of critical care have not yet incorporated environmental impact into their assessments, and few life cycle assessments exist that are specific to critical care therapies and treatments. Guidelines and standardisation regarding environmental data collection and reporting in health care are needed to support further research in the field. In the meantime, those planning health economic evaluations should include a process-based life cycle assessment to establish key environmental impacts specific to critical care.

Interventions to promote cost-effectiveness in adult intensive care units: consensus statement and considerations for best practice from a multidisciplinary and multinational eDelphi study

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence to guide interventions that promote cost-effectiveness in adult intensive care units (ICU). The aim of this consensus statement is to identify globally applicable interventions for best ICU practice and provide guidance for judicious use of resources.

METHODS

A three-round modified online Delphi process, using a web-based platform, sought consensus from 61 multidisciplinary ICU experts (physicians, nurses, allied health, administrators) from 21 countries. Round 1 was qualitative to ascertain opinions on cost-effectiveness criteria based on four key domains of high-value healthcare (foundational elements; infrastructure fundamentals; care delivery priorities; reliability and feedback). Round 2 was qualitative and quantitative, while round 3 was quantitative to reiterate and establish criteria. Both rounds 2 and 3 utilized a five-point Likert scale for voting. Consensus was considered when > 70% of the experts voted for a proposed intervention. Thereafter, the steering committee endorsed interventions that were identified as 'critical' by more than 50% of steering committee members. These interventions and experts' comments were summarized as final considerations for best practice.

RESULTS

At the conclusion of round 3, consensus was obtained on 50 best practice considerations for cost-effectiveness in adult ICU. Finally, the steering committee endorsed 9 'critical' best practice considerations. This included adoption of a multidisciplinary ICU model of care, focus on staff training and competency assessment, ongoing quality audits, thus ensuring high quality of critical care services whether within or outside the four walls of ICUs, implementation of a dynamic staff roster, multidisciplinary approach to implementing end-of-life care, early mobilization and promoting international consensus efforts on the Green ICU concept.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi study with international experts resulted in 9 consensus statements and best practice considerations promoting cost-effectiveness in adult ICUs. Stakeholders (government bodies, professional societies) must lead the efforts to identify locally applicable specifics while working within these best practice considerations with the available resources.

Limitation of Non-Beneficial Interventions and their Impact on the Intensive Care Unit Costs

Introduction

Using a plan to limit non-beneficial life support interventions has significantly reduced harm and loss of dignity for patients at the end of life. The association of these limitations with patients' clinical characteristics and health care costs in the intensive care unit (ICU) needs further scientific evidence.

Aim of the study

To explore decisions to limit non-beneficial life support interventions, their correlation with patients' clinical data, and their effect on the cost of care in the ICU.

Material and Methods

We included all patients admitted to the general ICU of a hospital in Greece in a two-year (2019-2021) prospective study. Data collection included patient demographic and clinical variables, data related to decisions to limit (withholding, withdrawing) non-beneficial interventions (NBIs), and economic data. Comparisons were made between patients with and without limitation decisions.

Results

NBIs were limited in 164 of 454 patients (36.12%). Patients with limitation decisions were associated with older age (70y vs. 62y; p<0,001), greater disease severity score (APACHE IV, 71 vs. 50; p<0,001), longer length of stay (7d vs. 4.5d; p<0,001), and worse prognosis of death (APACHE IV PDR, 48.9 vs. 17.35; p<0,001). All cost categories and total cost per patient were also higher than the patient without limitation of NBIs (9247,79€ vs. 8029,46€, p<0,004). The mean daily cost has not differed between the groups (831,24€ vs. 832,59€; p<0,716). However, in the group of patients with limitations, all cost categories, including the average daily cost (767.31€ vs. 649.12€) after the limitation of NBIs, were reduced to a statistically significant degree (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Limiting NBIs in the ICU reduces healthcare costs and may lead to better management of ICU resource use.

Cost comparisons and factors related to cost per stay in intensive care units in Belgium

BACKGROUND

Given the variability of intensive care unit (ICU) costs in different countries and the importance of this information for guiding clinicians to effective treatment and to the organisation of ICUs at the national level, it is of value to gather data on this topic for analysis at the national level in Belgium. The objectives of the study were to assess the total cost of ICUs and the factors that influence the cost of ICUs in hospitals in Belgium.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using data collected from the ICUs of 17 Belgian hospitals from January 01 to December 31, 2018. A total of 18,235 adult ICU stays were included in the study. The data set was a compilation of inpatient information from analytical cost accounting of hospitals, medical discharge summaries, and length of stay data. The costs were evaluated as the expenses related to the management of hospital stays from the hospital's point of view. The cost from the hospital perspective was calculated using a cost accounting analytical methodology in full costing. We used multivariate linear regression to evaluate factors associated with total ICU cost per stay. The ICU cost was log-transformed before regression and geometric mean ratios (GMRs) were estimated for each factor.

RESULTS

The proportion of ICU beds to ward beds was a median [p25-p75] of 4.7% [4.4-5.9]. The proportion of indirect costs to total costs in the ICU was 12.1% [11.4-13.3]. The cost of nurses represented 57.2% [55.4-62.2] of direct costs and this was 15.9% [12.0-18.2] of the cost of nurses in the whole hospital. The median cost per stay was €4,267 [2,050-9,658] and was €2,160 [1,545-3,221] per ICU day. The main factors associated with higher cost per stay in ICU were Charlson score, mechanical ventilation, ECMO, continuous hemofiltration, length of stay, readmission, ICU mortality, hospitalisation in an academic hospital, and diagnosis of coma/convulsions or intoxication.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that, despite the small proportion of ICU beds in relation to all services, the ICU represented a significant cost to the hospital. In addition, this study confirms that nursing staff represent a significant proportion of the direct costs of the ICU. Finally, the total cost per stay was also important but highly variable depending on the medical factors identified in our results.

Essential emergency and critical care as a health system response to critical illness and the COVID19 pandemic: what does it cost?

Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) is a novel approach to the care of critically ill patients, focusing on first-tier, effective, low-cost, life-saving care and designed to be feasible even in low-resourced and low-staffed settings. This is distinct from advanced critical care, usually conducted in ICUs with specialised staff, facilities and technologies. This paper estimates the incremental cost of EECC and advanced critical care for the planning of care for critically ill patients in Tanzania and Kenya.The incremental costing took a health systems perspective. A normative approach based on the ingredients defined through the recently published global consensus on EECC was used. The setting was a district hospital in which the patient is provided with the definitive care typically provided at that level for their condition. Quantification of resource use was based on COVID-19 as a tracer condition using clinical expertise. Local prices were used where available, and all costs were converted to USD2020.The costs per patient day of EECC is estimated to be 1 USD, 11 USD and 33 USD in Tanzania and 2 USD, 14 USD and 37 USD in Kenya, for moderate, severe and critical COVID-19 patients respectively. The cost per patient day of advanced critical care is estimated to be 13 USD and 294 USD in Tanzania and USD 17 USD and 345 USD in Kenya for severe and critical COVID-19 patients, respectively.EECC is a novel approach for providing the essential care to all critically ill patients. The low costs and lower tech approach inherent in delivering EECC mean that EECC could be provided to many and suggests that prioritizing EECC over ACC may be a rational approach when resources are limited.

Comparative costs for critically ill patients with limited English proficiency versus English proficiency

OBJECTIVES

To conduct comparative cost analysis of hospital care for critically ill patients with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) versus patients with English proficiency (controls).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a historical cohort study using propensity matching at Mayo Clinic Rochester, a quaternary care academic center. We included hospitalized patients who had at least one admission to ICU during a 10-year period between 1/1/2008-12/31/2017.

RESULTS

Due to substantial differences in baseline characteristics of the groups, propensity matching for the covariates age, sex, race, ethnicity, APACHE 3 score, and Charlson Comorbidity score was used, and we achieved the intended balance. The final cohort included 80,404 patients, 4,246 with LEP and 76,158 controls. Patients with LEP had higher costs during hospital admission to discharge, with a mean cost difference of $3861 (95% CI $822 to $6900, p = 0.013) and also higher costs during index ICU admission to hospital discharge, with a mean cost difference of $3166 (95% CI $231 to $6101, p = 0.035). A propensity matched cohort including only those that survived showed those with LEP had significantly greater mean costs for all outcomes. Sensitivity analysis revealed that international patients with LEP had significantly greater overall hospital costs of $9,240 than patients with LEP who resided in the US (95% CI $3341 to $15,140, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to demonstrate significantly higher costs for patients with LEP experiencing a critical illness. The causes for this may be increased healthcare utilization secondary to communication deficiencies that impede timely decision making about care.

Health economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): a cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE

We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of probiotics and usual care with usual care without probiotics in mechanically ventilated, intensive care unit patients alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (PROSPECT).

METHODS

We conducted a health economic evaluation alongside the PROSPECT randomized control trial (October 2013-March 2019). We adopted a public healthcare payer's perspective. Forty-four intensive care units in three countries (Canada/USA/Saudi Arabia) with adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients (N = 2,650) were included. Interventions were probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administered enterally twice daily. We collected healthcare resource use and estimated unit costs in 2019 United States dollars (USD) over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge/death. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing probiotics vs usual care. The primary outcome was incremental cost per ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) event averted; secondary outcomes were costs per Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD), antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD), and mortality averted. Uncertainty was investigated using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cost per patient was USD 66,914 (91,098) for patients randomized to probiotics, with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] of USD 42,947 [22,239 to 76,205]. By comparison, for those not receiving probiotics, mean (SD) cost per patient was USD 62,701 (78,676) (median [IQR], USD 41,102 [23,170 to 75,140]; incremental cost, USD 4,213; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2,269 to 10,708). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for VAP or AAD events averted, probiotics were dominated by usual care (more expensive, with similar effectiveness). The ICERs were USD 1,473,400 per CDAD event averted (95% CI, undefined) and USD 396,764 per death averted (95% CI, undefined). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves reveal that probiotics were not cost-effective across wide ranges of plausible willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Probiotics for VAP prevention among critically ill patients were not cost-effective. Study registration data www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov (NCT01782755); registered 4 February 2013.

Resource use, availability and cost in the provision of critical care in Tanzania: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Critical care is essential in saving lives of critically ill patients, however, provision of critical care across lower resource settings can be costly, fragmented and heterogenous. Despite the urgent need to scale up the provision of critical care, little is known about its availability and cost. Here, we aim to systematically review and identify reported resource use, availability and costs for the provision of critical care and the nature of critical care provision in Tanzania.

DESIGN

This is a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase and Global Health databases were searched covering the period 2010 to 17 November 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies that reported on forms of critical care offered, critical care services offered and/or costs and resources used in the provision of care in Tanzania published from 2010.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Quality assessment of the articles and data extraction was done by two independent researchers. The Reference Case for Estimating the Costs of Global Health Services and Interventions was used to assess quality of included studies. A narrative synthesis of extracted data was conducted. Costs were adjusted and reported in 2019 US$ and TZS using the World Bank GDP deflators.

RESULTS

A total 31 studies were found to fulfil the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Critical care identified in Tanzania was categorised into: intensive care unit (ICU) delivered critical care and non-ICU critical care. The availability of ICU delivered critical care was limited to urban settings whereas non-ICU critical care was found in rural and urban settings. Paediatric critical care equipment was more scarce than equipment for adults. 15 studies reported on the costs of services related to critical care yet no study reported an average or unit cost of critical care. Costs of medication, equipment (eg, oxygen, personal protective equipment), services and human resources were identified as inputs to specific critical care services in Tanzania.

CONCLUSION

There is limited evidence on the resource use, availability and costs of critical care in Tanzania. There is a strong need for further empirical research on critical care resources availability, utilisation and costs across specialties and hospitals of different level in low/middle-income countries like Tanzania to inform planning, priority setting and budgeting for critical care services.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020221923.

Temporal trends of medical cost and cost-effectiveness in sepsis patients: a Japanese nationwide medical claims database

Background

Sepsis is the leading cause of death worldwide. Although the mortality of sepsis patients has been decreasing over the past decade, the trend of medical costs and cost-effectiveness for sepsis treatment remains insufficiently determined.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study using the nationwide medical claims database of sepsis patients in Japan between 2010 and 2017. After selecting sepsis patients with a combined diagnosis of presumed serious infection and organ failure, patients over the age of 20 were included in this study. We investigated the annual trend of medical costs during the study period. The primary outcome was the annual trend of the effective cost per survivor, calculated from the gross medical cost and number of survivors per year. Subsequently, we performed subgroup and multiple regression analyses to evaluate the association between the annual trend and medical costs.

Results

Among 50,490,128 adult patients with claims, a total of 1,276,678 patients with sepsis were selected from the database. Yearly gross medical costs to treat sepsis gradually increased over the decade from $3.04 billion in 2010 to $4.38 billion in 2017, whereas the total medical cost per hospitalization declined (rate = − $1075/year, p < 0.0001). While the survival rate of sepsis patients improved during the study period, the effective cost per survivor significantly decreased (rate = − $1806/year [95% CI − $2432 to − $1179], p = 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, the trend of decreasing medical cost per hospitalization remained consistent among the subpopulation of age, sex, and site of infection. After adjusting for age, sex (male), number of chronic diseases, site of infection, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, surgery, and length of hospital stay, the admission year was significantly associated with reduced medical costs.

Conclusions

We demonstrated an improvement in annual cost-effectiveness in patients with sepsis between 2010 and 2017. The annual trend of reduced costs was consistent after adjustment with the confounders altering hospital expenses.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40560-022-00624-5.

Economic evaluations for intensive care unit randomised clinical trials in Australia and New Zealand: Practical recommendations for researchers

OBJECTIVES

Economic evaluations of intensive care unit (ICU) interventions have specific considerations, including how to cost ICU stays and accurately measure quality of life in survivors. The aim of this article was to develop best practice recommendations for economic evaluations alongside future ICU randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

REVIEW METHODS

We collated our experience based on expert consensus across several recent economic evaluations to provide best-practice, practical recommendations for researchers conducting economic evaluations alongside RCTs in the ICU. Recommendations were structured according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Task Force Report.

RESULTS

We discuss recommendations across the components of economic evaluations, including: types of economic evaluation, the population and sample size, study perspective, comparators, time horizon, choice of health outcomes, measurement of effectiveness, measurement and valuation of quality of life, estimating resources and costs, analytical methods, and the increment cost-effectiveness ratio. We also provide future directions for research with regard to developing more robust economic evaluations for the ICU.

CONCLUSION

Economic evaluations should be built alongside ICU RCTs and should be designed a priori using appropriate follow-up and data collection to capture patient-relevant outcomes. Further work is needed to improve the quality of data available for linkage in Australia as well as developing costing methods for the ICU and appropriate quality of life measurements.

Outcomes of the Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Procedure with Partial Upper Sternotomy

Due to better postoperative convalescence and quality of life, experienced centers focus on minimally invasive surgical techniques and approaches, but this approach is not routinely performed for valve-sparing root replacement procedures. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of valve-sparing root replacement via partial upper sternotomy. Between January 2016 and April 2021, 269 patients underwent a valve-sparing root replacement procedure, and partial upper sternotomy was performed in 52 patients. The clinical outcomes of the partial upper sternotomy (PUS) and complete sternotomy (CS) groups, including mortality, degree of aortic insufficiency, blood loss and consumption of blood products, postoperative complications, and hospitalization expenses, were compared. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to assess the degree of aortic regurgitation. Propensity score matching was performed as a sensitivity analysis. There was only one in-hospital death (in the CS group, p = 1) and no postoperative moderate to severe aortic insufficiency in either group. The blood loss and consumption of blood products in the PUS group were also lower than in the CS group, especially for plasma use. Regarding the need for re-exploration because of bleeding, acute kidney injury, pericardial pleural effusion, drainage volume within the first 24 h, mechanical ventilation time, and arrhythmia, the two groups were comparable. Patients in the CS group showed a longer ICU time (74.20 ± 47.21 vs. 50.9 30.16 h, p = 0.001) and higher hospitalization expenses (135,649.52 ± 29,992.21 vs. 123,380.15 ± 27,062.82 yuan, p < 0.001). None of the patients died or reoperated during the follow-up. Freedom from moderate or severe aortic insufficiency remained comparable after matching (p = 0.97). Minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic replacement via partial upper sternotomy can be safely performed in selected patients.

Costs and Cost-Utility of Critical Care and Subsequent Health Care: A Multicenter Prospective Study

OBJECTIVES

The number of critical care survivors is growing, but their long-term outcomes and resource use are poorly characterized. Estimating the cost-utility of critical care is necessary to ensure reasonable use of resources. The objective of this study was to analyze the long-term resource use and costs, and to estimate the cost-utility, of critical care.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Seventeen ICUs providing critical care to 85% of the Finnish adult population.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted to any of 17 Finnish ICUs from September 2011 to February 2012, enrolled in the Finnish Acute Kidney Injury (FINNAKI) study, and matched hospitalized controls from the same time period.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We primarily assessed total 3-year healthcare costs per quality-adjusted life-years at 3 years. We also estimated predicted life-time quality-adjusted life-years and described resource use and costs. The costing year was 2016. Of 2,869 patients, 1,839 (64.1%) survived the 3-year follow-up period. During the first year, 1,290 of 2,212 (58.3%) index episode survivors were rehospitalized. Median (interquartile range) 3-year cumulative costs per patient were $49,200 ($30,000-$85,700). ICU costs constituted 21.4% of the total costs during the 3-year follow-up. Compared with matched hospital controls, costs of the critically ill remained higher throughout the follow-up. Estimated total mean (95% CI) 3-year costs per 3-year quality-adjusted life-years were $46,000 ($44,700-$48,500) and per predicted life-time quality-adjusted life-years $8,460 ($8,060-8,870). Three-year costs per 3-year quality-adjusted life-years were $61,100 ($57,900-$64,400) for those with an estimated risk of in-hospital death exceeding 15% (based on the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II).

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare resource use was substantial after critical care and remained higher compared with matched hospital controls. Estimated cost-utility of critical care in Finland was of high value.

Intensive Care Unit Nurse: Could We Call a Palliative Care Consult? Intensive Care Unit Provider: It's Too Early. Palliative Care Integration in the Intensive Care Unit: The Struggle to Translate Evidence Into Practice

Despite evidence regarding the value of palliative care, there remains a translation-to-practice gap in the intensive care setting. The purpose of this article is to describe challenges and propose solutions to palliative care integration through the presentation and discussion of a critical care patient scenario. We also present recommendations for a collaborative palliative care practice framework that holds the potential to improve quality of life for patients and families. Collaborative palliative care is characterized by close working relationships with families, interprofessional intensive care unit healthcare teams, and palliative care specialists. The shortage of palliative care specialists has become a pressing policy and practice issue and highlights the importance of increasing primary palliative care delivery by the intensive care team. Underexplored aspects of collaborative palliative care delivery include the interprofessional communication required, identification of key skills, and expected outcomes. Increased recognition of intensive care unit palliative care as a process of engagement among nurses, providers, patients, and their family members heralds a vital culture shift toward collaborative palliative care. The interprofessional palliative specialist team has the expertise to support intensive care teams in developing their primary palliative skills and recognizing when specialist palliative care support is required. Promotion of strategic palliative care delivery through this collaborative framework has the potential to decrease suffering among patients and families and reduce moral distress among healthcare professionals.

Health-Related Quality-of-Life and Cost Utility Analyses in Critical Care: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Cost utility analyses compare the costs and health outcome of interventions, with a denominator of quality-adjusted life year, a generic health utility measure combining both quality and quantity of life. Cost utility analyses are difficult to compare when methods are not standardized. It is unclear how cost utility analyses are measured/reported in critical care and what methodologic challenges cost utility analyses pose in this setting. This may lead to differences precluding cost utility analyses comparisons. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of cost utility analyses conducted in critical care. Our objectives were to understand: 1) methodologic characteristics, 2) how health-related quality-of-life was measured/reported, and 3) what costs were reported/measured.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched for cost utility analyses in critical care in MEDLINE, Embase, American College of Physicians Journal Club, CENTRAL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews' selected subset of archived versions of UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and American Economic Association electronic databases from inception to April 30, 2020.

SETTING

Adult ICUs.

PATIENTS

Adult critically ill patients.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 8,926 citations, 80 cost utility analyse studies were eligible. The time horizon most commonly reported was lifetime (59%). For health utility reporting, health-related quality-of-life was infrequently measured (29% reported), with only 5% of studies reporting baseline health-related quality-of-life. Indirect utility measures (generic, preference-based health utility measurement tools) were reported in 85% of studies (majority Euro-quality-of-life-5 Domains, 52%). Methods of estimating health-related quality-of-life were seldom used when the patient was incapacitated: imputation (19%), assigning fixed utilities for incapacitation (19%), and surrogates reporting on behalf of incapacitated patients (5%). For cost utility reporting transparency, separate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years were both reported in only 76% of studies. Disaggregated quality-adjusted life years (reporting separate health utility and life years) were described in only 34% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified deficiencies which warrant recommendations (standardized measurement/reporting of resource use/unit costs/health-related quality-of-life/methodological preferences) for improved design, conduct, and reporting of future cost utility analyses in critical care.

Neck circumference as reliable predictor of mechanical ventilation support in adult inpatients with COVID-19: A multicentric prospective evaluation

AIMS

COVID-19 is especially severe for elderly subjects with cardiometabolic and respiratory comorbidities. Neck circumference (NC) has been shown to be strongly related to cardiometabolic and respiratory illnesses even after adjustment for body mass index (BMI). We performed a prospective study to investigate the potential of NC to predict the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in adult COVID-19 inpatients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively and consecutively enrolled COVID-19 adult patients admitted to dedicated medical wards of two Italian hospitals from 25 March to 7 April 2020. On admission, clinical, biochemical and anthropometric data, including BMI and NC were collected. As primary outcome measure, the maximum respiratory support received was evaluated. Follow-up time was 30 days from hospital admission.

RESULTS

We enrolled 132 subjects (55.0-75.8 years, 32% female). During the study period, 26 (19.7%) patients underwent IMV. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, after adjusting for age, sex, diabetes, hypertension and COPD, NC resulted independently and significantly associated with IMV risk (adjusted OR 1.260-per 1 cm increase 95% CI:1.120-1.417; P < .001), with a stronger association in the subgroup with BMI ≤30 Kg/m² (adjusted OR 1.526; 95% CI:1.243-1.874; P < .001). NC showed a good discrimination power in predicting patients requiring IMV (AUC 0.783; 95% CI:0.684-0.882; P < .001). In particular, NC > 40.5 cm (>37.5 for females and >42.5 for males) showed a higher and earlier IMV risk compared to subjects with lower NC (Log-rank test: P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

NC is an easy to measure parameter able to predict the need for IMV in adult COVID-19 inpatients.

Health economic evaluation of patients with sepsis after gastrointestinal tumor surgery-a cost consequences analysis in China

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the health economics of patients with sepsis after gastrointestinal tumor operation in ICU.

Methods

This case-control study used 1:1 propensity-score (PS) matched method and patients were matched according to tumor type, age and gender. The study group was composed of 181 patients with sepsis after operation of gastrointestinal tumor in ICU, while the control group was composed of 181 patients without sepsis after operation of gastrointestinal tumor. The medical expenses and length of stay in the hospital of these patients were analyzed.

Results

The median of the total hospitalization cost for the study group was $26,038, which was 1.7 times of the control group (P<0.001). The costs of drugs, laboratory test, examination, treatment, operation, anesthesia, materials, ward and other costs in the study group were higher than those in the control group (P<0.001). The median length of stay in the hospital in the study group was 26 days, which were 12 days longer than that of the control group (P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in daily average cost between the two groups (P=0.103).

Conclusions

In ICU, patients with sepsis after operation of gastrointestinal tumor increased the cost of hospitalization and prolonged the length of stay in the hospital than those without sepsis.

The cost-effectiveness of adjunctive corticosteroids for patients with septic shock

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone is a cost-effective treatment for patients with septic shock.

DESIGN

Data linkage-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

SETTING

New South Wales and Queensland intensive care units.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION

Patients with septic shock randomly assigned to treatment with hydrocortisone or placebo in the Adjunctive Glucocorticoid Therapy in Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL) trial.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Health-related quality of life at 6 months using the EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire. Data on hospital resource use and costs were obtained by linking the ADRENAL dataset to government administrative health databases. Clinical outcomes included mortality, health-related quality of life, and quality-adjusted life-years gained; economic outcomes included hospital resource use, costs and cost-effectiveness from the health care payer perspective. We also assessed cost-effectiveness by sex. To increase the precision of cost-effectiveness estimates, we conducted unrestricted bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Of 3800 patients in the ADRENAL trial, 1772 (46.6%) were eligible and 1513 (85.4% of those eligible) were included. There was no difference between hydrocortisone or placebo groups in regards to mortality (218/742 [29.4%] v 227/759 [29.9%]; HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.12; P = 0.47), mean number of QALYs gained (0.10 ± 0.09 v 0.10 ± 0.09; P = 0.52), or total hospital costs (A$73 515 ± 61 376 v A$69 748 ± 61 793; mean difference, A$3767; 95% CI, -A$2891 to A$10 425; P = 0.27). The incremental cost of hydrocortisone was A$1 254 078 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In females, hydrocortisone was cost-effective in 46.2% of bootstrapped replications and in males it was cost-effective in 2.7% of bootstrapped replications.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive hydrocortisone did not significantly affect longer term mortality, health-related quality of life, health care resource use or costs, and is unlikely to be cost-effective.

An international comparison of the cost of fluid resuscitation therapies

OBJECTIVE

Fluid resuscitation is a ubiquitous intervention in the management of patients treated in the intensive care unit, which has implications for intensive care unit resourcing and budgets. Our objective was to calculate the relative cost of resuscitation fluids in several countries to inform future economic evaluations.

METHODS

We collected site-level data regarding the availability and cost of fluids as part of an international survey. We normalised costs to net present values using purchasing power parities and published inflation figures. Costs were also adjusted for equi-effective dosing based on intravascular volume expansion effectiveness and expressed as US dollars (USD) per 100 mL crystalloid equivalent.

RESULTS

A total of 187 sites had access to cost data. Between countries, there was an approximate six fold variation in the cost of crystalloids and colloids overall. The average cost for crystalloids overall was less than 1 USD per 100 mL. In contrast, colloid fluids had higher average costs (59 USD per 100 mL). After adjusting for equi-effective dosing, saline was ∼27 times less costly than albumin (saline: 0.6 USD per 100 mL crystalloid equivalent; albumin 4-5%: 16.4 USD; albumin 20-25%: 15.8 USD) and ∼4 times less costly than hydroxyethyl starch solution (saline: 0.6 USD; hydroxyethyl starch solution: 2.5 USD). Buffered salt solutions, such as compound sodium acetate solutions (e.g., Plasmalyte®), had the highest average cost of crystalloid fluids, costing between 3 and 4 USD per 100 mL.

CONCLUSION

The cost of fluid varies substantially between fluid types and between countries, although normal (0.9%) saline is consistently less costly than colloid preparations and some buffered salt solutions. These data can be used to inform future economic evaluations of fluid preparations.

Economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common healthcare-associated infection in the intensive care unit (ICU). Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms that may confer health benefits when ingested. Prior randomised trials suggest that probiotics may prevent infections such as VAP and Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD). PROSPECT (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial) is a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial comparing the efficacy of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG with usual care versus usual care without probiotics in preventing VAP and other clinically important outcomes in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The objective of E-PROSPECT is to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of L. rhamnosus GG plus usual care versus usual care without probiotics in critically ill patients. E-PROSPECT will be performed from the public healthcare payer's perspective over a time horizon from ICU admission to hospital discharge.We will determine probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all patients alongside PROSPECT. We will retrieve unit costs for each resource use item using jurisdiction-specific public databases, supplemented by individual site unit costs if such databases are unavailable. Direct costs will include medications, personnel costs, radiology/laboratory testing, operative/non-operative procedures and per-day hospital 'hoteling' costs not otherwise encompassed. The primary outcome is the incremental cost per VAP prevented between the two treatment groups. Other clinical events such as CDAD, antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and in-hospital mortality will be included as secondary outcomes. We will perform pre-specified subgroup analyses (medical/surgical/trauma; age; frailty status; antibiotic use; prevalent vs no prevalent pneumonia) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses for VAP, then generate confidence intervals using the non-parametric bootstrapping approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Study approval for E-PROSPECT was granted by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board of McMaster University on 29 July 2019. Informed consent was obtained from the patient or substitute decision-maker in PROSPECT. The findings of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01782755; Pre-results.

Health economic evaluations of sepsis interventions in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review

Background

Sepsis is a global health priority. Interventions to reduce the burden of sepsis need to be both effective and cost-effective. We performed a systematic review of the literature on health economic evaluations of sepsis treatments in critically ill adult patients and summarised the evidence for cost-effectiveness.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using thesaurus (e.g. MeSH) and free-text terms related to sepsis and economic evaluations. We included all articles that reported, in any language, an economic evaluation of an intervention for the management of sepsis in critically ill adult patients. Data extracted included study details, intervention details, economic evaluation methodology, and outcomes. Included studies were appraised for reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

Results

We identified 50 records representing 46 economic evaluations for a variety of interventions including antibiotics (n = 5), fluid therapy (n = 2), early goal-directed therapy and other resuscitation protocols (n = 8), immunoglobulins (n = 2), and interventions no longer in clinical use such as monoclonal antibodies (n = 7) and drotrecogin alfa (n = 13). Twelve (26%) evaluations were of excellent reporting quality. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (lower costs and higher effectiveness) for early goal-directed therapy, albumin, and a multifaceted sepsis education program to dominated (higher costs and lower effectiveness) for polymerase chain reaction assays (LightCycler SeptiFast testing MGRADE®, SepsiTest™, and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay). ICERs varied widely across evaluations, particularly in subgroup analyses.

Conclusions

There is wide variation in the cost-effectiveness of sepsis interventions. There remain important gaps in the literature, with no economic evaluations identified for several interventions routinely used in sepsis. Given the high economic and social burden of sepsis, high-quality economic evaluations are needed to increase our understanding of the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in routine clinical practice and to inform decision makers.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42018095980