Economic evaluations for intensive care unit randomised clinical trials in Australia and New Zealand: Practical recommendations for researchers.

OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations of intensive care unit (ICU) interventions have specific considerations, including how to cost ICU stays and accurately measure quality of life in survivors. The aim of this article was to develop best practice recommendations for economic evaluations alongside future ICU randomised controlled trials (RCTs). REVIEW METHODS: We collated our experience based on expert consensus across several recent economic evaluations to provide best-practice, practical recommendations for researchers conducting economic evaluations alongside RCTs in the ICU. Recommendations were structured according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Task Force Report. RESULTS: We discuss recommendations across the components of economic evaluations, including: types of economic evaluation, the population and sample size, study perspective, comparators, time horizon, choice of health outcomes, measurement of effectiveness, measurement and valuation of quality of life, estimating resources and costs, analytical methods, and the increment cost-effectiveness ratio. We also provide future directions for research with regard to developing more robust economic evaluations for the ICU. CONCLUSION: Economic evaluations should be built alongside ICU RCTs and should be designed a priori using appropriate follow-up and data collection to capture patient-relevant outcomes. Further work is needed to improve the quality of data available for linkage in Australia as well as developing costing methods for the ICU and appropriate quality of life measurements.

Oral midodrine does not expedite liberation from protracted vasopressor infusions: A case-control study.

Vasopressor dependence is a common problem affecting patients in the recovery phase of critical illness, often necessitating intensive care unit (ICU) admission and other interventions which carry associated risks. Midodrine is an orally administered vasopressor which is commonly used off-label to expedite weaning from vasopressor infusions and facilitate discharge from ICU. We performed a single-centre, case-control study to assess whether midodrine accelerated liberation from vasopressor infusions in patients who were vasopressor dependent. Cases were identified at the discretion of treating intensivists and received 20 mg oral midodrine every eight h from enrolment. Controls received placebo. Data on duration and dose of vasopressor infusion, haemodynamics and adverse events were collected. Between 2012 and 2019, 42 controls and 19 cases were recruited. Cases had received vasopressor infusions for a median of 94 h versus 29.3 h for controls, indicating prolonged vasopressor dependence amongst cases. Midodrine use in cases was not associated with faster weaning of intravenous (IV) vasopressors (26 h versus 24 h for controls, P = 0.51), ICU or hospital length of stay after adjustment for confounders. Midodrine did not affect mean heart rate but was associated with bradycardia. This case-control study demonstrates that midodrine has limited efficacy in expediting weaning from vasopressor infusions in patients who have already received relatively prolonged courses of these infusions.

Muscle Growth and Anabolism in Intensive Care Survivors (GAINS) trial: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To explore the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of administration of the anabolic steroid nandrolone to patients in the recovery phase from critical illness weakness. METHODS: In this phase II, double blind, randomized, controlled trial, adult critically ill patients admitted to one of two tertiary Intensive Care Units in Western Australia for longer than 7 days with significant weakness were enrolled. Patients received nandrolone (200 mg males, 100 mg females) intramuscularly or placebo weekly for up to 3 weeks in addition to standard care. The primary outcome measures were improvement in grip strength, Medical Research Council muscle strength sum score, and functional activity level (Chelsea critical care assessment tool [CPAx]). RESULTS: A total of 22 patients was enrolled between September 2017 and May 2019. No significant adverse events were detected. Median grip strength change was non-significantly greater in the nandrolone group (8.5 vs. 13.0, P=0.185), while hospital length of stay (36 vs. 26 days, P=0.023) and duration of mechanical ventilation (377 vs. 168, P=0.032) were lower. The discharge CPAx and intensive care unit mobility scores were higher in the nandrolone group, although there was no difference in the change in CPAx score (17.0 vs. 17.7, P=0.865). There were no changes in ultrasound-detected muscle thickness between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prolonged critical illness, nandrolone appears to be safe. However, a larger study, potentially combined with resistance exercise, is needed to definitively address the potential benefits of nandrolone.