Mortality, Morbidity, and Costs After Implementation of a Vasopressin Guideline in Medical Intensive Care Patients With Septic Shock: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

Background: Vasopressin decreases vasopressor requirements in patients with septic shock. However, the optimal norepinephrine dose for initiation or cessation of vasopressin is unclear. Objective: Analyze monthly intensive care unit (ICU) mortality rates 1 year preimplementation and postimplementation of a guideline suggesting a norepinephrine dose of 50 µg/min or more for initiation of vasopressin and early cessation of vasopressin. Methods: This retrospective quasi-experimental study included adult patients with septic shock admitted to the medical ICU of a tertiary care medical center over 2 years. Time periods were evaluated with interrupted time series analysis. Results: A total of 1148 patients were included: 573 patients preguideline and 575 patients postguideline. Group characteristics were well balanced at baseline, except patients postguideline had higher sequential organ failure assessment scores. Postguideline, fewer patients were initiated on vasopressin (305 [53.2%] vs 217 [37.7%], absolute difference -15.5% [95% CI -21.2% to -9.8%]), and the norepinephrine dose at vasopressin initiation was higher (median 25 [interquartile range 18, 40] µg/min vs 40 [22, 52] µg/min; median difference 15 [95% CI 11 to 19] µg/min; P < 0.01). After guideline implementation, there was no evidence for a difference in ICU mortality rate slope (slope change 0.07% [95% CI -0.8% to 1.0%] per month; P 0.87), but the vasoactive cost level decreased by US$183 (95% CI -US$327 to -US$39) per patient immediately after implementation. Conclusion and Relevance: Implementation of a guideline suggesting a high norepinephrine dose threshold for vasopressin initiation and early vasopressin cessation in patients with septic shock appears to be safe and may decrease vasoactive costs.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line vasopressors for the treatment of septic shock.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of escalating doses of norepinephrine or norepinephrine plus the adjunctive use of vasopressin or angiotensin II as a second-line vasopressor for septic shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision tree analysis was performed to compare costs and outcomes associated with norepinephrine monotherapy or the two adjunctive second-line vasopressors. Short- and long-term outcomes modeled included ICU survival and lifetime quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY) gained. Costs were modeled from a payer's perspective, with a willingness-to-pay threshold set at $100,000/unit gained. One-way (tornado diagrams) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Adjunctive vasopressin was the most cost-effective therapy, and dominated both norepinephrine monotherapy and adjunctive angiotensin II by producing higher ICU survival at less cost. For the lifetime horizon, while norepinephrine monotherapy was least expensive, adjunctive vasopressin was the most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,762 / QALY gained. Although adjunctive angiotensin II produced more QALYs compared to norepinephrine monotherapy, it was dominated in the long-term evaluation by second-line vasopressin. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated model robustness and medication costs were not significant drivers of model results. CONCLUSIONS: Vasopressin is the most cost-effective second-line vasopressor in both the short- and long-term evaluations. Vasopressor price is a minor contributor to overall cost.

Effectiveness, Safety, and Economic Comparison of Inhaled Epoprostenol Brands, Flolan and Veletri, in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Background: No previous studies exist examining 2 inhaled epoprostenol formulations in an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patient population. Objective: The study aim was to evaluate a formulary conversion from inhaled Flolan to Veletri to determine the impact on effectiveness, safety, and cost in patients with ARDS. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, matched cohort observational study at a tertiary care academic medical center. Patients included were mechanically ventilated, adult patients with ARDS receiving inhaled Flolan or Veletri for ≥1 hour in the intensive care unit. Results: A total of 132 patients were included in the matched cohort. There was no difference detected in change in partial pressure of arterial O2/fraction of inspired O2 (PaO2/FiO2) ratio after 1 hour of therapy between the inhaled Flolan and Veletri groups (27.2 ± 46.2 vs 30 ± 68 mm Hg, P = 0.78). Significant differences in secondary outcomes included incidence of hypotension (83% vs 95.5%, P = 0.04) and thrombocytopenia (9.1% vs 29.5%, P < 0.01) in the inhaled Flolan and Veletri groups, respectively, with no difference in cost per duration of therapy (P = 0.29). Conclusions and Relevance: There was no difference in the change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio after 1 hour of therapy between inhaled Flolan and Veletri in an ARDS patient population. The formulary conversion from inhaled Flolan to Veletri was likely justified.

Perceptions regarding vasopressin use and practices in septic shock, and cost containment strategies.

Background: Clinician preferences and practices regarding appropriate vasopressin use in light of its increased acquisition cost secondary to rebranding has not been evaluated or described since the most recent iteration of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline was published. Objective: To assess vasopressin cost containment initiatives and pharmacists' opinions regarding appropriate vasopressin use. Methods: A scenario-based survey was distributed to critical care and emergency medicine pharmacists. Responses were characterized using frequency and descriptive statistics. Categorical variables between those who implemented changes (Vasopressin Cost Consideration) and those who did not (Usual Care) were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. McNemar's test was used to compare responses in clinical scenarios between Vasopressin Cost Consideration and Usual Care groups. Results: Among 1757 pharmacists surveyed, 200 (11.3%) responded. When respondents considered vasopressin cost and evidence (vs evidence alone), fewer respondents would use vasopressin adjunctively with norepinephrine (21% vs 26.6%, P = 0.031), to raise mean arterial pressure compared with epinephrine (65.2% vs 72.3%, P = 0.012), or to reduce norepinephrine infusion rates (71.4% vs 81.4%, P < 0.001), but would use with steroids (62.4% vs 28.3%, P < 0.001). Most (72%) respondents had implemented vasopressin cost containment and/or education initiatives. The Vasopressin Cost Consideration group respondents were more likely to initiate vasopressin at 0.03 units/minute without titrating (47.9% vs 33.9%, P = 0.045). Conclusion: Since vasopressin was generically rebranded, most institutions have implemented at least one initiative to reduce vasopressin use and/or educate clinicians about its appropriate use. When vasopressin acquisition costs were considered, pharmacists recommended its use less frequently, particularly in clinical scenarios where its use is controversial.

Effectiveness, safety, and Economic Comparison of Two Inhaled Epoprostentol Products (Flolan and Veletri) in Cardiothoracic Surgery Patients.

BACKGROUND: No previous studies exist examining two inhaled epoprosternol formulations (Flolan compared with Veletri) in a homogenous cardiothoracic surgery patient population. OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of inhaled Flolan and inhaled Veletri on the effectiveness, safety, or cost in cardiothoracic surgery patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, noninferiority study comparing inhaled Flolan and inhaled Veletri in cardiothoracic surgery patients. Participants included were ≥18 years old, admitted to the cardiothoracic intensive care unit, and received inhaled Flolan or inhaled Veletri therapy for ≥1 hour. RESULTS: A total of 244 patients were included in the primary outcome analysis (122 patients per group). The primary outcome, change in the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio 1 hour after administration of inhaled Flolan or inhaled Veletri, did not cross the lower limit of the noninferiority margin (95% CI = -14.8 to 65.4). Significant differences in secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation (4.4 vs 2.6 days; P < 0.01), number of tracheostomies (24 vs 9; P = 0.01), number of patients initiated on dialysis (25 vs 12; P = 0.02), and cost per median duration of therapy ($257 vs $183; P = 0.02) in the inhaled Flolan and inhaled Veletri groups, with the average duration of therapy being 1.6 and 1.3 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Inhaled Veletri was demonstrated to be non-inferior to inhaled Flolan when comparing change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio 1 hour post -therapy initiation,and inhaled Veletri was an acceptable alternative to inhaled Flolan in a cardiothoracic surgery patient population.