M Elizabeth Wilcox1, Kelsey Vaughan2, Christopher A K Y Chong3, Peter J Neumann4, Chaim M Bell5. 1. University Health Network and Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Bang for Buck Consulting, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Section of General Internal Medicine, Lakeridge Health Oshawa, Oshawa, ON, Canada. 4. Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. 5. Sinai Health System and the Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness analyses are increasingly used to aid decisions about resource allocation in healthcare; this practice is slow to translate into critical care. We sought to identify and summarize original cost-effectiveness studies presenting cost per quality-adjusted life year, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, or cost per life-year ratios for treatments used in ICUs. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic search of the English-language literature for cost-effectiveness analyses published from 1993 to 2018 in critical care. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond checklist. SETTING: Critical care units. PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS: Critical care patients. INTERVENTIONS: Identified studies with cost-effectiveness analyses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 97 studies published through 2018 with 156 cost-effectiveness ratios. Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from -$119,635 (hypothetical cohort of patients requiring either intermittent or continuous renal replacement therapy) to $876,539 (data from an acute renal failure study in which continuous renal replacement therapy was the most expensive therapy). Many studies reported favorable cost-effectiveness profiles (i.e., below $50,000 per life year or quality-adjusted life year). However, several therapies have since been proven harmful. Over 2 decades, relatively few cost-effectiveness studies in critical care have been published (average 4.6 studies per year). There has been a more recent trend toward using hypothetical cohorts and modeling scenarios without proven clinical data (2014-2018: 19/33 [58%]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite critical care being a significant healthcare cost burden there remains a paucity of studies in the literature evaluating its cost effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES: Cost-effectiveness analyses are increasingly used to aid decisions about resource allocation in healthcare; this practice is slow to translate into critical care. We sought to identify and summarize original cost-effectiveness studies presenting cost per quality-adjusted life year, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, or cost per life-year ratios for treatments used in ICUs. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic search of the English-language literature for cost-effectiveness analyses published from 1993 to 2018 in critical care. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond checklist. SETTING: Critical care units. PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS: Critical care patients. INTERVENTIONS: Identified studies with cost-effectiveness analyses. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 97 studies published through 2018 with 156 cost-effectiveness ratios. Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from -$119,635 (hypothetical cohort of patients requiring either intermittent or continuous renal replacement therapy) to $876,539 (data from an acute renal failure study in which continuous renal replacement therapy was the most expensive therapy). Many studies reported favorable cost-effectiveness profiles (i.e., below $50,000 per life year or quality-adjusted life year). However, several therapies have since been proven harmful. Over 2 decades, relatively few cost-effectiveness studies in critical care have been published (average 4.6 studies per year). There has been a more recent trend toward using hypothetical cohorts and modeling scenarios without proven clinical data (2014-2018: 19/33 [58%]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite critical care being a significant healthcare cost burden there remains a paucity of studies in the literature evaluating its cost effectiveness.
Authors: Vincent Issac Lau; Deborah J Cook; Robert Fowler; Bram Rochwerg; Jennie Johnstone; François Lauzier; John C Marshall; John Basmaji; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Lehana Thabane; Feng Xie Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Stefano Di Bella; Roberto Cesareo; Paolo De Cristofaro; Andrea Palermo; Gianfranco Sanson; Erik Roman-Pognuz; Verena Zerbato; Silvia Manfrini; Donatella Giacomazzi; Eugenia Dal Bo; Gianluca Sambataro; Elisabetta Macchini; Francesco Quintavalle; Giuseppe Campagna; Renato Masala; Luigi Ottaviani; Cosmo Del Borgo; Lorenzo Ridola; Frida Leonetti; Giorgio Berlot; Roberto Luzzati Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2020-06-14 Impact factor: 4.876