power point
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A cost-effectiveness study of enteral immune modulating nutrition in intensive care patients
Elizabeth CoatesClare Hibbert
Medical Economics and Research Centre, Sheffield (MERCS)
CIMC 2001
![Page 2: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
What is immunonutrition?
The term given to describe special enteral feeds containing:
– Arginine– Omega-3 fatty acids– Nucleotides– (and sometimes, glutamine)
Ref: Barbul A. Immunonutrition comes of age. Crit Care Med 2000;28:3:884-885 (editorial).
![Page 3: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
What is cost-effectiveness analysis?
Treatment ADifferences
Treatment B
Ref: Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, 1997.
![Page 4: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Rationale
![Page 5: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
1. The nature of critically ill patients’
conditions
–Malnutrition–Compromise of immune system
–Infection
![Page 6: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
All these increase:
• Length of ICU and hospital stay
• Morbidity• Mortality• Resource
consumption• Costs of care
![Page 7: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
2. Growing evidence on the benefits of immunonutrition…
![Page 8: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
3. Despite these findings, and the increasing pressure to curtail expenditure
The cost-effectiveness issue has rarely been explored…
![Page 9: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Aim of the study
To estimate the cost-effectiveness of immunonutrition (IMN) in reducing infection rates in critically ill adult patientswhen compared with standard enteral nutrition.
![Page 10: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Outcome measure
A reduction in the duration of days of
infection in ICU patients with sepsis
(from NHS perspective)
![Page 11: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Literature review
Rationale
![Page 12: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Literature searchDatabases
• MedLine• Embase• CINAHL
Search terms• Immunonutriton• Nutrition• Enteral feed• Intensive care• Critical care• Costs• Cost-effectiveness
(analysis)
Review of the literature…
![Page 13: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Studies of IMN
• Atkinson (1998) reduced ICU & hospital LOS and duration of ventilation
• Bower (1995) reduction in acquired infections and hospital LOS
• Galban (2000) reduction in infection rate and lower mortality rate
![Page 14: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Key paper
Beale et al. Immunonutrition
in the critically ill: A systematic review of clinical outcome.
Critical Care Medicine 1999; 27:12: 2799-2805.
![Page 15: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Benefits of immunonutrition?
IMNHospital
LOS2.8 days,
CI=1.3, 4.4 daysP=0.0003
VentilatorDays
2.9 days, CI=0.1, 5.9 daysP=0.04
InfectionRelative risk
0.60, CI=0.41,0.86P=0.006
Ref: Beale et al. Immunonutrition in the critically ill: A systematic review of clinical outcome.Crit Care Med 1999;27:12:2799-2805
![Page 16: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Rationale
Literature review
Methods
![Page 17: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Methodology
The evaluation of cost-effectiveness was based on two factors:
1. Evidence of effectiveness of IMN from the 12 RCTs included in the meta-analysis (1482 patients)
2. Retrospective cost data on individual ICU patients at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital
![Page 18: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Methods
Clinical effectiveness
Rationale
Literaturereview
![Page 19: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
RCTs included in the meta-analysis
• Atkinson S, Sieffert E, Bihari D on behalf of the Guy’s Hospital Intensive Care Group: A prospective randomised double-blind clinical trial of enteral immunonutrition in the critically ill. Critical Care Medicine 1998; 26:1164-1172
• Bower RH, Cerra FB, Bershadsky B et al: Early enteral administration of a formula (IMPACT) supplemented with arginine, nucleotides, and fish oil in intensive care unit patients: Results of a multicenter, prospective, randomised, clinical trial. Critical Care Medicine 1995; 23:436-449
• Cerra FB, Lehman S, Konstantinides N, et al: Effect of enteral nutrient on in vitro tests of immune function in ICU patients: A preliminary report. Nutrition 1990; 6:84-87
• Daly JM, Lieberman MD, Goldfine J, et al: Enteral nutrition with supplemental arginine, RNA and omega-3 fatty acids in patients after operation: Immunologic, metabolic, and clinical outcome. Surgery 1992; 112:56-67
• Daly JM, Weintraub FN, Shou J, et al: Enteral nutrition during multimodality therapy in upper gastrointestinal cancer patients. Annals of Surgery 1995; 221:327-338
• Galban C, Carlos Montejo J, Mesejo A, et al: An immune-enhancing enteral diet reduces mortality and episodes of bacteremia in septic intensive care unit patients. Critical Care Medicine 2000; 28, 3:643-648
• Kudsk KA, Minard G, Croce MA, et al: A randomised trial of isonitrogenous enteral diets after severe trauma: An immune-enhancing diet reduces septic complications. Annals of Surgery 1996; 224:531-540
• Moore FA, Moore EE, Kudsk KA, et al: Clinical benefits of an immune-enhancing diet for early post injury enteral feeding. Journal of Trauma 1994; 37:607-615
• Schilling J, Vranjes N, Fierz W et al: Clinical outcome and immunology of postoperative arginine, omega-3 fatty acids, and nucleotide-enriched enteral feeding: A randomised prospective comparison with standard enteral and low calorie/low fat solutions. Nutrition 1996; 12:423-429
• Senkal M, Mumme A, Eickhoff U, et al: Early postoperative enteral immunonutriton: Clinical outcome and cost-comparison analysis in surgical patients. Critical Care Medicine 1997; 25:1489-1496
• Weimann A, Bastian L, Grotz M, et al: Influence of arginine, omega-3 fatty acids and nucleotide-supplemented enteral support on systematic inflammatory response syndrome and multiple organ failure in patients after severe trauma. Nutrition 1998; 14:165-172
• Braga M, Gianotti L, Vignali A et al: Artificial nutrition after major abdominal surgery: Impact of route of administration and composition of the diet. Critical Care Medicine 1998; 26:24-30.
![Page 20: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Evaluation of the clinical evidence
• Assessment of the studies’ quality using the CONSORT statement
• This provides a standard method for the reporting (and assessment) of randomised controlled trials
Ref: The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 28:8:637-9
![Page 21: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Translate the benefits into %s
IMNInfectio
n40%
Reduction
Worst-caseScenario@ 14%
Best-caseScenario@ 59%
Ref: Beale et al. Immunonutrition in the critically ill: A systematic review of clinical outcome. Crit Care Med1999;27:12:2799-2805
![Page 22: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Methods
Clinical effectiveness
Rationale
Literaturereview
Cost data
![Page 23: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Infection
• Decided to use sepsis as the case study in my economic analysis for three reasons:
1. Most frequent type of infection in the meta-analysis
2. Availability of previously published data (from RHH) on costs of sepsis.
3. Significance of the infection
Ref: Edbrooke et al. The patient-related costs of care for sepsis patients in a United Kingdom adult general intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1999; 27:9:1760-1767
![Page 24: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
What is sepsis?• Defined as severe sepsis; associated with at
least two of the following:– Elevated plasma lactate or metabolic acidosis, arterial pH <7.3 or base
excess -5mEq/L
– Hypoxemia, either PaO2/F102 <280 or hypoxemia requiring mechanical ventilation
– Platelet count decrease to less than half of a previous count or <100,000/mm3 or unexplained coagulopathy
– Oliguria, urine output <30 mL/hr or <0.5 mL/kg/hr for at least 2hrs that is refractory to an adequate fluid challenge (>500 mL)
• Or early septic shock:– Severe sepsis associated with hypotension (systolic blood
pressure <90 mm Hg or reduction in systolic blood pressure of >40 mm Hg in the absence of causes other than septic shock) receiving vasopressors at therapeutic doses for up to 2hrs before study drug dosing
Ref: American College of Chest Physicians and the Society of Critical Care Medicine held in August1991 and adapted by Hoffman La Roche AG
![Page 25: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
The patients
• 213 admitted to the ICU at RHH over ten months during 1995-96.
• 36 with evidence of sepsis at any point during their ICU stay (16.9%)
• 177 without evidence of sepsis (83.1%)
Ref: Edbrooke et al. The patient-related costs of care for sepsis patients in a United Kingdom adult general intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1999; 27:9:1760-1767
![Page 26: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Cost analysisCalculated total costs for each cost
component:
• Drugs
• Fluids
• Consumables
• Medical Imaging
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
290
270
250
230
210
190
170
150
130
110
90
70
50
30
10
![Page 27: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Cost analysis
Calculated total costs for each cost component:
• Nurses
• Doctors
• Other staff (technical and admin)
![Page 28: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Methods
Clinicaleffectiveness
Rationale
Literature review
Cost data
Results
![Page 29: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Cost differencesSepsis patients Non-sepsis patients
£537 per day £425 per day
S
LOS = 14.08 days LOS = 3.31 days
£7560 per patient
£1407 per patient
![Page 30: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Cost-Cost-effectiveness of effectiveness of
IMN?IMN?
![Page 31: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Enteral Feed Reduction in rate of infection (%)
Cost (£) (per patient)
Estimated change in cost (£) (per patient)
Number of days of infection avoided
Estimated change in cost (£) (per day of infection avoided)
Daily additional cost of IMN=£35
Standard 7558
Immunonutrition
14 7830 +273 1.97 +138
40 7421 -137 5.63 -24
59 7122 -436 8.31 -52
Cost-effectiveness
![Page 32: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Reduction in duration of sepsis
Sepsis rate 16.9% Using standard feed =
(cost per sepsis patient x 16.9)
+(cost per non-sepsis
patient x 83.1)
=£244,621
On a larger scale: per 100 patients
X 10
Costs Before (using standard enteral feed)
![Page 33: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Reduction in duration of sepsis
Sepsis rate 16.9% Using IMN = (cost per
sepsis patient + cost of feed x 16.9)
+(cost per non-sepsis
patient x 83.1)
=£242,311
On a larger scale: per 100 patients
X 10
Costs After(using immunonutrition)
![Page 34: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
![Page 35: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Methods
Clinical effectiveness
Rationale
Literaturereview
Cost data
Results
Sensitivity analysis
![Page 36: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Sensitivity analysis
• With cheapest patients, IMN always more expensive, e.g.
• 14% reduction = +£469: per patient
• 40% reduction = +£425: per patient
• 59% reduction = +£393: per patient
![Page 37: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Sensitivity analysis
• With most expensive patients, IMN can be cost-effective, e.g.
• 14% reduction = +£76: per patient
• 40% reduction = -£698: per patient
• 59% reduction = -£1265: per patient
![Page 38: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Sensitivity analysis
Methods
Clinical effectiveness
Rationale
Literaturereview
Cost data
Results
Problems
![Page 39: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Problems with this approach (i)
• Assumptions about:– Infection type– Duration of infection– Costs associated with treating
infection– Cost of the treatment
• These will all vary between ICUs
![Page 40: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Problems with this approach
(ii)• Ignores the potential length of
stay reduction
• Therefore, small cost savings
• Doesn’t account for the recurrence of infection.
![Page 41: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Sensitivityanalysis
Methods
Clinicaleffectiveness
Rationale
Literaturereview
Results
Problems Conclusion
Cost data
![Page 42: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Conclusion
• IMN can be cost-effective
• Need to ensure a certain level of clinical efficacy
• Need to identify safe population who can demonstrate benefits worth the additional costs
![Page 43: Power Point](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062418/5550503ab4c9058f768b5448/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Recommendation
In an ideal situation, an economic evaluation would be completed alongside a multicentre RCT…