Measuring the cost-effectiveness of technologic change in the treatment of pediatric traumatic brain injury

Traumatic brain injury: methodological approaches to estimate health and economic outcomes

The effort to standardize the methodology and adherence to recommended principles for all economic evaluations has been emphasized in medical literature. The objective of this review is to examine whether economic evaluations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) research have been compliant with existing guidelines. Medline search was performed between January 1, 1995 and August 11, 2012. All original TBI-related full economic evaluations were included in the study. Two authors independently rated each study's methodology and data presentation to determine compliance to the 10 methodological principles recommended by Blackmore et al. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize the data. Inter-rater reliability was assessed with Kappa statistics. A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. Eighteen of these studies described cost-effectiveness, seven cost-benefit, and three cost-utility analyses. The results showed a rapid growth in the number of published articles on the economic impact of TBI since 2000 and an improvement in their methodological quality. However, overall compliance with recommended methodological principles of TBI-related economic evaluation has been deficient. On average, about six of the 10 criteria were followed in these publications, and only two articles met all 10 criteria. These findings call for an increased awareness of the methodological standards that should be followed by investigators both in performance of economic evaluation and in reviews of evaluation reports prior to publication. The results also suggest that all economic evaluations should be made by following the guidelines within a conceptual framework, in order to facilitate evidence-based practices in the field of TBI.

Is aggressive treatment of traumatic brain injury cost-effective?

OBJECT

The object of this study was to determine whether aggressive treatment of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), including invasive intracranial monitoring and decompressive craniectomy, is cost-effective.

METHODS

A decision-analytical model was created to compare costs, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of 3 strategies for treating a patient with severe TBI. The aggressive-care approach is compared with "routine care," in which Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines are not followed. A "comfort care" category, in which a single day in the ICU is followed by routine floor care, is included for comparison only. Probabilities of each treatment resulting in various Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores were obtained from the literature. The GOS scores were converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), based on expected longevity and calculated quality of life associated with each GOS category. Estimated direct (acute and long-term medical care) and indirect (loss of productivity) costs were calculated from the perspective of society. Sensitivity analyses employed a 2D Monte Carlo simulation of 1000 trials, each with 1000 patients. The model was also used to estimate these values for patients 40, 60, and 80 years of age.

RESULTS

For the average 20-year-old, aggressive care yields 11.7 (± 1.6 [SD]) QALYs, compared with routine care (10.0 ± 1.5 QALYs). This difference is highly significant (p < 0.0001). Although the differences in effectiveness between the 2 strategies diminish with advancing age, aggressive care remains significantly better at all ages. When all costs are considered, aggressive care is also significantly less costly than routine care ($1,264,000 ± $118,000 vs $1,361,000 ± $107,000) for the average 20-year-old. Aggressive care remains significantly less costly until age 80, at which age it costs more than routine care. However, even in the 80-year-old, aggressive care is likely the more cost-effective approach. Comfort care is associated with poorer outcomes at all ages and with higher costs for all groups except 80-year-olds.

CONCLUSIONS

When all the costs of severe TBI are considered, aggressive treatment is a cost-effective option, even for older patients. Comfort care for severe TBI is associated with poor outcomes and high costs, and should be reserved for situations in which aggressive approaches have failed or testing suggests such treatment is futile.