Christopher J Yarnell, Kali Barrett, Anna Heath, Margaret Herridge, Robert A Fowler, Lillian Sung, David M Naimark, George Tomlinson
{"title":"What Is the Potential Value of a Randomized Trial of Different Thresholds to Initiate Invasive Ventilation? A Health Economic Analysis.","authors":"Christopher J Yarnell, Kali Barrett, Anna Heath, Margaret Herridge, Robert A Fowler, Lillian Sung, David M Naimark, George Tomlinson","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To estimate the expected value of undertaking a future randomized controlled trial of thresholds used to initiate invasive ventilation compared with usual care in hypoxemic respiratory failure.</p><p><strong>Perspective: </strong>Publicly funded healthcare payer.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Critical care units capable of providing invasive ventilation and unconstrained by resource limitations during usual (nonpandemic) practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a model-based cost-utility estimation with individual-level simulation and value-of-information analysis focused on adults, admitted to critical care, receiving noninvasive oxygen. In the primary scenario, we compared hypothetical threshold A to usual care, where threshold A resulted in increased use of invasive ventilation and improved survival compared with usual care. In the secondary scenario, we compared hypothetical threshold B to usual care, where threshold B resulted in decreased use of invasive ventilation and similar survival compared with usual care. We assumed a willingness-to-pay of 100,000 Canadian dollars (CADs) per quality-adjusted life year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the primary scenario, threshold A was cost-effective compared with usual care due to improved hospital survival (78.1% vs. 75.1%), despite more use of invasive ventilation (62% vs. 30%) and higher lifetime costs (86,900 vs. 75,500 CAD). In the secondary scenario, threshold B was cost-effective compared with usual care due to similar survival (74.5% vs. 74.6%) with less use of invasive ventilation (20.2% vs. 27.6%) and lower lifetime costs (71,700 vs. 74,700 CAD). Value-of-information analysis showed that the expected value to Canadian society over 10 years of a 400-person randomized trial comparing a threshold for invasive ventilation to usual care in hypoxemic respiratory failure was 1.35 billion CAD or more in both scenarios.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It would be highly valuable to society to identify thresholds that, in comparison to usual care, either increase survival or reduce invasive ventilation without reducing survival.</p>","PeriodicalId":93957,"journal":{"name":"Critical care explorations","volume":"6 6","pages":"e1098"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11152783/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To estimate the expected value of undertaking a future randomized controlled trial of thresholds used to initiate invasive ventilation compared with usual care in hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Perspective: Publicly funded healthcare payer.
Setting: Critical care units capable of providing invasive ventilation and unconstrained by resource limitations during usual (nonpandemic) practice.
Methods: We performed a model-based cost-utility estimation with individual-level simulation and value-of-information analysis focused on adults, admitted to critical care, receiving noninvasive oxygen. In the primary scenario, we compared hypothetical threshold A to usual care, where threshold A resulted in increased use of invasive ventilation and improved survival compared with usual care. In the secondary scenario, we compared hypothetical threshold B to usual care, where threshold B resulted in decreased use of invasive ventilation and similar survival compared with usual care. We assumed a willingness-to-pay of 100,000 Canadian dollars (CADs) per quality-adjusted life year.
Results: In the primary scenario, threshold A was cost-effective compared with usual care due to improved hospital survival (78.1% vs. 75.1%), despite more use of invasive ventilation (62% vs. 30%) and higher lifetime costs (86,900 vs. 75,500 CAD). In the secondary scenario, threshold B was cost-effective compared with usual care due to similar survival (74.5% vs. 74.6%) with less use of invasive ventilation (20.2% vs. 27.6%) and lower lifetime costs (71,700 vs. 74,700 CAD). Value-of-information analysis showed that the expected value to Canadian society over 10 years of a 400-person randomized trial comparing a threshold for invasive ventilation to usual care in hypoxemic respiratory failure was 1.35 billion CAD or more in both scenarios.
Conclusions: It would be highly valuable to society to identify thresholds that, in comparison to usual care, either increase survival or reduce invasive ventilation without reducing survival.