Cost-Effectiveness of Propofol (Diprivan) Versus Inhalational Anesthetics to Maintain General Anesthesia in Noncardiac Surgery in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: It is not known whether using propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) to reduce incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is cost-effective. We assessed the economic impact of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anesthesia in adult patients for ambulatory and inpatient procedures relevant to the US healthcare system. METHODS: Two models simulate individual patient pathways through inpatient and ambulatory surgery with propofol TIVA or inhalational anesthesia with economic inputs from studies on adult surgical US patients. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model estimates. RESULTS: Lower PONV rate, shorter stay in the post-anesthesia care unit, and reduced need for rescue antiemetics offset the higher costs for anesthetics, analgesics, and muscle relaxants with propofol TIVA and reduced cost by 11.41 ± 10.73 USD per patient in the inpatient model and 11.25 ± 9.81 USD in the ambulatory patient model. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated strong robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance of general anesthesia with propofol was cost-saving compared to inhalational anesthesia in both inpatient and ambulatory surgical settings in the United States. These economic results support current guideline recommendations, which endorse propofol TIVA to reduce PONV risk and enhance postoperative recovery.

Cost-Effectiveness of Parenteral Nutrition Containing ω-3 Fatty Acids in Hospitalized Adult Patients From 5 European Countries and the US.

BACKGROUND: ω-3 Fatty acid (FA)-containing parenteral nutrition (PN) is associated with improvements in patient outcomes and with reductions in hospital length of stay (HLOS) vs standard PN regimens (containing non-ω-3 FA lipid emulsions). We present a cost-effectiveness analysis of ω-3 FA-containing PN vs standard PN in 5 European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and the US. METHODS: This pharmacoeconomic model was based on estimates of ω-3 efficacy reported in a recent meta-analysis and data from country-specific sources. It utilized a probabilistic discrete event simulation model to compare ω-3 FA-containing PN with standard PN in a population of critically ill and general ward patients. The influence of model parameters was evaluated using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Overall costs were reduced with ω-3 FA-containing PN in all 6 countries compared with standard PN, ranging from €1741 (±€1284) in Italy to €5576 (±€4193) in the US. Expenses for infections and HLOS were lower in all countries for ω-3 FA-containing PN vs standard PN, with the largest cost differences for both in the US (infection: €825 ± €4001; HLOS: €4879 ± €1208) and the smallest savings in the UK for infections and in Spain for HLOS (€63 ± €426 and €1636 ± €372, respectively). CONCLUSION: This cost-effectiveness analysis in 6 countries demonstrates that the superior clinical efficacy of ω-3 FA-containing PN translates into significant decreases in mean treatment cost, rendering it an attractive cost-saving alternative to standard PN across different healthcare systems.

Omega-3 fatty acid-containing parenteral nutrition in ICU patients: systematic review with meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Omega-3 (ω-3) fatty acid (FA)-containing parenteral nutrition (PN) is associated with significant improvements in patient outcomes compared with standard PN regimens without ω-3 FA lipid emulsions. Here, we evaluate the impact of ω-3 FA-containing PN versus standard PN on clinical outcomes and costs in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients using a meta-analysis and subsequent cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of a hospital operating in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and the US. METHODS: We present a pharmacoeconomic simulation based on a systematic literature review with meta-analysis. Clinical outcomes and costs comparing ω-3 FA-containing PN with standard PN were evaluated in adult ICU patients eligible to receive PN covering at least 70% of their total energy requirements and in the subgroup of critically ill ICU patients (mean ICU stay > 48 h). The meta-analysis with the co-primary outcomes of infection rate and mortality rate was based on randomized controlled trial data retrieved via a systematic literature review; resulting efficacy data were subsequently employed in country-specific cost-effectiveness analyses. RESULTS: In adult ICU patients, ω-3 FA-containing PN versus standard PN was associated with significant reductions in the relative risk (RR) of infection (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45, 0.86; p = 0.004), hospital length of stay (HLOS) (- 3.05 days; 95% CI - 5.03, - 1.07; p = 0.003) and ICU length of stay (LOS) (- 1.89 days; 95% CI - 3.33, - 0.45; p = 0.01). In critically ill ICU patients, ω-3 FA-containing PN was associated with similar reductions in infection rates (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.46, 0.94; p = 0.02), HLOS (- 3.98 days; 95% CI - 6.90, - 1.06; p = 0.008) and ICU LOS (- 2.14 days; 95% CI - 3.89, - 0.40; p = 0.02). Overall hospital episode costs were reduced in all six countries using ω-3 FA-containing PN compared to standard PN, ranging from €-3156 ± 1404 in Spain to €-9586 ± 4157 in the US. CONCLUSION: These analyses demonstrate that ω-3 FA-containing PN is associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement in patient outcomes. Its use is also predicted to yield cost savings compared to standard PN, rendering ω-3 FA-containing PN an attractive cost-saving alternative across different health care systems. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019129311.

ω-3 Fatty-Acid Enriched Parenteral Nutrition in Hospitalized Patients: Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated ω-3 fatty-acid enriched parenteral nutrition (PN) vs standard (non-ω-3 fatty-acid enriched) PN in adult hospitalized patients (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018110179). We included 49 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with intervention and control groups given ω-3 fatty acids and standard lipid emulsions, respectively, as part of PN covering ≥70% energy provision. The relative risk (RR) of infection (primary outcome; 24 RCTs) was 40% lower with ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN than standard PN (RR 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.72; P < 0.00001). Patients given ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN had reduced mean length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (10 RCTs; 1.95 days, 95% CI 0.42-3.49; P = 0.01) and reduced length of hospital stay (26 RCTs; 2.14 days, 95% CI 1.36-2.93; P < 0.00001). Risk of sepsis (9 RCTs) was reduced by 56% in those given ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.70; P = 0.0004). Mortality rate (co-primary outcome; 20 RCTs) showed a nonsignificant 16% reduction (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65-1.07; P = 0.15) for the ω-3 fatty-acid enriched group. In summary, ω-3 fatty-acid enriched PN is beneficial, reducing risk of infection and sepsis by 40% and 56%, respectively, and length of both ICU and hospital stay by about 2 days. Provision of ω-3-enriched lipid emulsions should be preferred over standard lipid emulsions in patients with an indication for PN.