Browsing by Author "Lau, Vincent I."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Health Economic Evaluation of Antimicrobial Stewardship, Procalcitonin Testing, and Rapid Blood Culture Identification in Sepsis Care: A 90-Day Model-Based, Cost-Utility Analysis(2024-11-19) Sligl, Wendy I.; Yan, Charles; Round, Jeff; Wang, Xiaoming; Chen, Justin Z.; Boehm, Cheyanne; Fong, Karen; Crick, Katelynn; Clua, Míriam G.; Codan, Cassidy; Dingle, Tanis C.; Prosser, Connie; Chen, Guanmin; Tse-Chang, Alena; Garros, Daniel; Zygun, David; Opgenorth, Dawn; Conly, John M.; Doig, Christopher J.; Lau, Vincent I.; Bagshaw, Sean M.Abstract Objective We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a bundled intervention including an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP), procalcitonin (PCT) testing, and rapid blood culture identification (BCID), compared with pre-implementation standard care in critically ill adult patients with sepsis. Methods We conducted a decision tree model-based cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously published pre- and post-implementation quality improvement study. We adopted a public Canadian healthcare payer’s perspective. Two intensive care units in Alberta with 727 adult critically ill patients were included. Our bundled intervention was compared with pre-implementation standard care. We collected healthcare resource use and estimated unit costs in 2022 Canadian dollars (CAD) over a time horizon from study entry to hospital discharge or death. We calculated the incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) of the intervention group compared with the pre-intervention group. The primary outcome was cost per sepsis case. Secondary outcomes included readmission rates, Clostridioides difficile infections, mortality, and lengths of stay. Uncertainty was investigated using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, cost-effectiveness plane scatterplots, and sensitivity analyses. Results Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cost per index hospital admission was CAD $83,251 ($107,926) for patients in the intervention group and CAD $87,044 ($104,406) for the pre-intervention group, though the difference ($3,793 [$7,897]) was not statistically significant. Costs were higher in the pre-intervention group for antibiotics, readmissions, and C. difficile infections. The intervention group had a lower mean expected cost; $110,580 ($108,917) compared with pre-intervention ($125,745 [$113,210]), with a difference of $15,165 ($8278). There were no statistically significant differences in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) between groups. The iNMB of the intervention group compared with pre-intervention was greater than $15,000 for willingness-to-pay (WTP) per QALY values of between $0 and $100,000. In our sensitivity analysis, the intervention was most likely to be cost-effective in roughly 56% of simulations at all WTP thresholds. Conclusions Our bundled intervention of ASP, PCT, and BCID among adult critically ill patients with sepsis was potentially cost-effective, but with substantial decision uncertainty.Item Open Access Midodrine for the early liberation from vasopressor support in the ICU (LIBERATE): a feasibility study(2024-12-04) Kilcommons, Sebastian J.; Hammal, Fadi; Opgenorth, Dawn L.; Fiest, Kirsten M.; Karvellas, Constantine J.; Lau, Vincent I.; MacIntyre, Erika; Senaratne, Janek; Slemko, Jocelyn; Sligl, Wendy; Zampieri, Fernando; Duquette, D.’Arcy; Guan, Lily T.; Baig, Nadia; Bagshaw, Sean M.; Rewa, Oleksa G.Abstract Background Intravenous (IV) vasopressors are the mainstay of physiological support for hemodynamically unstable patients. However, the role of oral vasopressors remains unclear. The objective of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of evaluating midodrine for critically ill patients with IV vasopressor-dependent shock. Methods We conducted a single-center, concealed-allocation, parallel-group, blinded feasibility randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the effect of oral midodrine versus placebo on IV vasopressor-dependent shock in the intensive care unit (ICU). The study was performed in a medical-surgical ICU at the University of Alberta Hospital from April 2021 to July 2022. We included patients aged 18 years or older admitted to the ICU with ongoing vasopressor support with decreasing vasopressor dose(s). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to midodrine or a placebo for the duration of their IV vasopressor therapy. The primary outcome was study feasibility and secondary outcomes included patient-centered outcomes. Feasibility was assessed through rate of recruitment, adherence to study protocol, and patient safety. Results Twenty patients were enrolled in the study and underwent randomization (n = 11 midodrine, n = 9 control). Recruitment was recorded at 1.2 participants per month, protocol adherence was 90%, and allocation remained concealed. No adverse events were reported in either group. Sepsis was the most common cause of shock in both groups. The midodrine group had a shorter length of ICU stay of 9.6 (SD 8.7) vs 10.4 (SD 14.5) days. Hospital mortality was lower for the midodrine group (n = 2, 18.2% vs n = 4, 37.5%). Vasopressor re-initiation after 24 h was more frequent in the midodrine group (n = 4, 36.4% vs n = 2, 25%). There were no readmissions to the ICU following discharge in either group. Conclusions The evaluation of midodrine for patients in the ICU is feasible and safe. This trial will inform future large-scale RCTs regarding the utility of midodrine in critically ill patients with IV vasopressor-dependent shock. Trial registration This pilot RCT was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04489589). Registered July 27, 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04489589