Quality of Life After Intensive Care Unit Discharge in a Tertiary Care Hospital in India: Cost Effectiveness Analyis

Long-term Survival and Quality of Life among Survivors Discharged from a Respiratory ICU in North India: A Prospective Study

Background

Advancements in the intensive care unit (ICU) have improved critically ill subjects' short-term outcomes. However, there is a need to understand the long-term outcomes of these subjects. Herein, we study the long-term outcomes and factors associated with poor outcomes in critically ill subjects with medical illnesses.

Materials and methods

All subjects (≥12 years) discharged after an ICU stay of at least 48 hours were included. We evaluated the subjects at 3 and 6 months after ICU discharge. At each visit, subjects were administered the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument (WHO-QOL-BREF) questionnaire. The primary outcome was mortality at 6 months after ICU discharge. The key secondary outcome was quality of life (QOL) at 6 months.

Results

In total, 265 subjects were admitted to the ICU, of whom 53 subjects (20%) died in the ICU, and 54 were excluded. Finally, 158 subjects were included: 10 (6.3%) subjects were lost to follow-up. The mortality at 6 months was 17.7% (28/158). Most subjects [16.5% (26/158)] died within the initial 3 months after ICU discharge. Quality of life scores were low in all the domains of WHO-QOL-BREF. About 12% (n = 14) of subjects could not perform the activity of daily living at 6 months. After adjusting for covariates, ICU-acquired weakness at the time of discharge (OR 15.12; 95% CI, 2.08-109.81, p <0.01) and requirement for home ventilation (OR 22; 95% CI, 3.1-155, p <0.01) were associated with mortality at 6 months.

Conclusion

Intensive care unit survivors have a high risk of death and a poor QOL during the initial 6 months following discharge.

How to cite this article

Kodati R, Muthu V, Agarwal R, Dhooria S, Aggarwal AN, Prasad KT, et al. Long-term Survival and Quality of Life among Survivors Discharged from a Respiratory ICU in North India: A Prospective Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(10):1078-1085.

The state of cost-utility analysis in India: A systematic review

Aims:

Cost-utility studies are crucial tools that help policy-makers promote appropriate resource allocation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent and quality of cost-utility analysis (CUA) in India through a systematic literature review.

Methods:

Comprehensive database search was conducted to identify the relevant literature published from November 2009 to November 2019. Gray literature and hand searches were also performed. Two researchers independently reviewed and assessed study quality using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist.

Results:

Thirty-five studies were included in the final review. Thirteen studies used Markov model, five used decision tree model, four used a combination of decision tree and Markov model and one each used microsimulation and dynamic compartmental model. The primary therapeutic areas targeted in CUA were infectious diseases (n = 12), ophthalmology (n = 5), and endocrine disorders (n = 4). Five studies were carried out in Tamil Nadu, four in Goa, three in Punjab, two each in Delhi, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh, and one each in West Bengal and Karnataka. Twenty-three, eight, and four studies were found to be of excellent, very good, and good quality, respectively. The average quality score of the studies was 19.21 out of 24.

Conclusions:

This systematic literature review identified the published CUA studies in India. The overall quality of the included studies was good; however, features such as subgroup analyses and explicit study perspective were missing in several evaluations.

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.

Critical Care Research in Elderly Population: An Uncharted Territory

How to cite this article: Todi S, Choudhuri R. Critical Care Research in Elderly Population: An Uncharted Territory. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(7):500-501.

Survivorship and (QALY)ty: In Pursuit of a Mirage?

How to cite this article: Vijayaragavan BKT, Ramakrishnan N. Survivorship and (QALY)ty: In Pursuit of a Mirage? Indian J Crit Care Med 2019;23(3):111-112.