Cost-effectiveness of data driven personalised antibiotic dosing in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Hana M Broulikova, Jacqueline Wallage, Luca Roggeveen, Lucas Fleuren, Tingjie Guo, Paul W G Elbers, Judith E Bosmans
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of data driven personalised antibiotic dosing in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock.","authors":"Hana M Broulikova, Jacqueline Wallage, Luca Roggeveen, Lucas Fleuren, Tingjie Guo, Paul W G Elbers, Judith E Bosmans","doi":"10.1007/s10877-024-01257-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study provides an economic evaluation of bedside, data-driven, and model-informed precision dosing of antibiotics in comparison with usual care among critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This economic evaluation was conducted alongside an AutoKinetics randomized controlled trial. Effect measures included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), mortality and pharmacokinetic target attainment. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Missing data was multiply imputed, and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty. Differences in effects and costs were estimated using bivariate regression and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients in the intervention group had higher costs (€42,684 vs. 39,475), lower mortality (42% vs. 49%), more QALYs (0.184 vs. 0.153), and higher pharmacokinetic target attainment (69% vs. 48%). Only the difference for target attainment was found statistically significant. An additional €18,129, €55,576, and €123,493 needs to be invested to attain the targeted plasma levels for one more patient, to save one life and gain one QALY, respectively. The probability of cost-effectiveness for all effect outcomes is below 60% for most acceptable willingness-to-pay thresholds.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Data-driven personalised antibiotic dosing in critically ill patients as implemented in the AutoKinetics trial cannot be recommended for implementation as a cost-effective intervention.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The trial was prospectively registered at Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), NL6501/NTR6689 on 25 August 2017 and at the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 2017-002478-37 on 6 November 2017.</p>","PeriodicalId":15513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-024-01257-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study provides an economic evaluation of bedside, data-driven, and model-informed precision dosing of antibiotics in comparison with usual care among critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock.

Methods: This economic evaluation was conducted alongside an AutoKinetics randomized controlled trial. Effect measures included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), mortality and pharmacokinetic target attainment. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Missing data was multiply imputed, and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty. Differences in effects and costs were estimated using bivariate regression and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results: Patients in the intervention group had higher costs (€42,684 vs. 39,475), lower mortality (42% vs. 49%), more QALYs (0.184 vs. 0.153), and higher pharmacokinetic target attainment (69% vs. 48%). Only the difference for target attainment was found statistically significant. An additional €18,129, €55,576, and €123,493 needs to be invested to attain the targeted plasma levels for one more patient, to save one life and gain one QALY, respectively. The probability of cost-effectiveness for all effect outcomes is below 60% for most acceptable willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Conclusions: Data-driven personalised antibiotic dosing in critically ill patients as implemented in the AutoKinetics trial cannot be recommended for implementation as a cost-effective intervention.

Trial registration: The trial was prospectively registered at Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), NL6501/NTR6689 on 25 August 2017 and at the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 2017-002478-37 on 6 November 2017.

数据驱动的个体化抗生素给药对脓毒症或感染性休克危重患者的成本效益
目的:本研究对重症脓毒症或感染性休克患者的床边、数据驱动和模型知情的抗生素精确剂量进行了经济评估,并与常规护理进行了比较。方法:该经济评价与AutoKinetics随机对照试验同时进行。效果测量包括质量调整生命年(QALYs)、死亡率和药代动力学目标实现情况。成本是从社会角度来衡量的。对缺失数据进行多重输入,并用自举法估计统计不确定性。使用双变量回归估计效果和成本的差异,并用于计算增量成本-效果比。结果:干预组患者费用较高(42,684欧元对39,475欧元),死亡率较低(42%对49%),QALYs较高(0.184对0.153),药代动力学目标达到率较高(69%对48%)。只有达到目标的差异在统计学上是显著的。另外需要投入18,129欧元、55,576欧元和123,493欧元,以使每增加一名患者达到目标血浆水平、挽救一条生命和获得一个QALY。对于大多数可接受的支付意愿阈值,所有效果结果的成本效益概率低于60%。结论:在AutoKinetics试验中实施的数据驱动的危重患者个性化抗生素剂量不能作为一种具有成本效益的干预措施推荐实施。试验注册:该试验于2017年8月25日在荷兰试验注册中心(NTR) NL6501/NTR6689前瞻性注册,并于2017年11月6日在欧洲临床试验数据库(EudraCT) 2017-002478-37前瞻性注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.60%
发文量
144
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing is a clinical journal publishing papers related to technology in the fields of anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and peri-operative medicine. The journal has links with numerous specialist societies, including editorial board representatives from the European Society for Computing and Technology in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (ESCTAIC), the Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA), the Society for Complex Acute Illness (SCAI) and the NAVAt (NAVigating towards your Anaestheisa Targets) group. The journal publishes original papers, narrative and systematic reviews, technological notes, letters to the editor, editorial or commentary papers, and policy statements or guidelines from national or international societies. The journal encourages debate on published papers and technology, including letters commenting on previous publications or technological concerns. The journal occasionally publishes special issues with technological or clinical themes, or reports and abstracts from scientificmeetings. Special issues proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Specific details of types of papers, and the clinical and technological content of papers considered within scope can be found in instructions for authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信