Search

Purpose: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of probiotics and usual care with usual care without probiotics in mechanically ventilated, intensive care unit patients alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (PROSPECT)., Methods: We conducted a health economic evaluation alongside the PROSPECT randomized control trial (October 2013-March 2019). We adopted a public healthcare payer's perspective. Forty-four intensive care units in three countries (Canada/USA/Saudi Arabia) with adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients (N = 2,650) were included. Interventions were probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administered enterally twice daily. We collected healthcare resource use and estimated unit costs in 2019 United States dollars (USD) over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge/death. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing probiotics vs usual care. The primary outcome was incremental cost per ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) event averted; secondary outcomes were costs per Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD), antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD), and mortality averted. Uncertainty was investigated using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses., Results: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cost per patient was USD 66,914 (91,098) for patients randomized to probiotics, with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] of USD 42,947 [22,239 to 76,205]. By comparison, for those not receiving probiotics, mean (SD) cost per patient was USD 62,701 (78,676) (median [IQR], USD 41,102 [23,170 to 75,140]; incremental cost, USD 4,213; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2,269 to 10,708). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for VAP or AAD events averted, probiotics were dominated by usual care (more expensive, with similar effectiveness). The ICERs were USD 1,473,400 per CDAD event averted (95% CI, undefined) and USD 396,764 per death averted (95% CI, undefined). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves reveal that probiotics were not cost-effective across wide ranges of plausible willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions., Conclusions: Probiotics for VAP prevention among critically ill patients were not cost-effective. Study registration data www., Clinicaltrials: gov (NCT01782755); registered 4 February 2013., (© 2022. Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.)

Introduction: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common healthcare-associated infection in the intensive care unit (ICU). Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms that may confer health benefits when ingested. Prior randomised trials suggest that probiotics may prevent infections such as VAP and Clostridioides difficile -associated diarrhoea (CDAD). PROSPECT (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial) is a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial comparing the efficacy of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG with usual care versus usual care without probiotics in preventing VAP and other clinically important outcomes in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU., Methods and Analysis: The objective of E-PROSPECT is to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of L. rhamnosus GG plus usual care versus usual care without probiotics in critically ill patients. E-PROSPECT will be performed from the public healthcare payer's perspective over a time horizon from ICU admission to hospital discharge.We will determine probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all patients alongside PROSPECT. We will retrieve unit costs for each resource use item using jurisdiction-specific public databases, supplemented by individual site unit costs if such databases are unavailable. Direct costs will include medications, personnel costs, radiology/laboratory testing, operative/non-operative procedures and per-day hospital 'hoteling' costs not otherwise encompassed. The primary outcome is the incremental cost per VAP prevented between the two treatment groups. Other clinical events such as CDAD, antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and in-hospital mortality will be included as secondary outcomes. We will perform pre-specified subgroup analyses (medical/surgical/trauma; age; frailty status; antibiotic use; prevalent vs no prevalent pneumonia) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses for VAP, then generate confidence intervals using the non-parametric bootstrapping approach., Ethics and Dissemination: Study approval for E-PROSPECT was granted by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board of McMaster University on 29 July 2019. Informed consent was obtained from the patient or substitute decision-maker in PROSPECT. The findings of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT01782755; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Probiotics may prevent healthcare-associated infections, such as ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea, and other adverse outcomes. Despite their potential benefits, there are no summative data examining the cost-effectiveness of probiotics in hospitalized patients. This systematic review summarized studies evaluating the economic impact of using probiotics in hospitalized adult patients., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ACP Journal Club, and other EBM reviews (inception to January 31, 2019) for health economics evaluations examining the use of probiotics in hospitalized adults. Independently and in duplicate, we extracted data study characteristics, risk of bias, effectiveness and total costs (medications, diagnostics/procedures, devices, personnel, hospital) associated with healthcare-associated infections (ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea and antibiotic-associated diarrhea). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods to assess certainty in the overall cost-effectiveness evidence., Results: Of 721 citations identified, we included seven studies. For the clinical outcomes of interest, there was one randomized-controlled trial (RCT)-based health economic evaluation, and six model-based health economic evaluations. Probiotics showed favourable cost-effectiveness in six of seven (86%) economic evaluations. Three of the seven studies were manufacturer-supported, all which suggested cost-effectiveness. Certainty of cost-effectiveness evidence was very low because of risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency., Conclusion: Probiotics may be an economically attractive intervention for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea, and antibiotic-associated diarrhea in hospitalized adult patients. Nevertheless, certainty about their cost-effectiveness evidence is very low. Future RCTs examining probiotics should incorporate cost data to inform bedside practice, clinical guidelines, and healthcare policy., Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019129929; Registered 25 April, 2019.