Modelling the potential increase in eligible participants in clinical trials with inclusion of community intensive care unit patients in Alberta, Canada: a decision tree analysis.

PURPOSE: Critical care research in Canada is conducted primarily in academically affiliated intensive care units (ICUs) with established research infrastructure. Efforts are made to engage community hospital ICUs in research, although the impacts of their inclusion in clinical research have never been explicitly quantified. We therefore sought to determine the number of additional eligible patients that could be recruited into critical care trials and the change in time to study completion if community ICUs were included in clinical research. METHODS: We conducted a decision tree analysis using 2018 Alberta Health Services data. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics for all ICU patients were compared against eligibility criteria from ten landmark, randomized, multicentre critical care trials. Individual patients from academic and community ICUs were assessed for eligibility in each of the ten studies, and decision tree analysis models were built based on prior inclusion and exclusion criteria from those trials. RESULTS: The number of potentially eligible patients for the ten trials ranged from 2,082 to 10,157. Potentially eligible participants from community ICUs accounted for 40.0% of total potentially eligible participants. The recruitment of community ICU patients in trials would have increased potential enrolment by an average of 64.0%. The inclusion of community ICU patients was predicted to decrease time to trial completion by a mean of 14 months (43% reduction). CONCLUSION: Inclusion of community ICU patients in critical care research trials has the potential to substantially increase enrolment and decrease time to trial completion.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La recherche en soins intensifs au Canada est principalement réalisée dans des unités de soins intensifs affiliées à des centres universitaires jouissant d'infrastructures de recherche bien établies. Des efforts ont été déployés pour engager les unités de soins intensifs des hôpitaux communautaires en recherche, mais les impacts de leur participation à la recherche clinique n'ont jamais été explicitement quantifiés. Nous avons conséquemment cherché à déterminer le nombre de patient·es additionnel·les pouvant être recruté·es dans des études de soins critiques ainsi que la variation du temps nécessaire pour compléter les études si la patientèle issue d'unités de soins intensifs d'hôpitaux communautaires participait à la recherche clinique. MéTHODE: Une analyse par arbre de décision a été réalisée à partir de données provenant des Alberta Health Services pour l'année 2018. Les données démographiques et les caractéristiques cliniques de tou·tes les patient·es admis·es aux soins intensifs ont été comparées avec les critères d'éligibilité de dix importantes études multicentriques, randomisées, contrôlées en soins intensifs. Les patient·es des unités de soins intensifs universitaires et communautaires ont tou·tes été évalué·es pour leur éligibilité à chacune des dix études, et des modèles d'arbres décisionnels ont été construits en se basant sur les critères originaux d'inclusion et d'exclusion. RéSULTATS: Le nombre de personnes potentiellement éligibles pour les dix études s'est situé entre 2082 et 10 157. Les patient·es potentiellement admissibles en provenance d'unités de soins intensifs communautaires ont représenté 40,0 % de toutes les personnes potentiellement admissibles. Le recrutement de patient·es en provenance d'unités de soins intensifs communautaires aurait permis une hausse moyenne du recrutement potentiel de 64,0 %. L'inclusion de patient·es des unités de soins intensifs communautaires pourrait également réduire le temps nécessaire à la complétion des études de 14 mois en moyenne (réduction de 43 %). CONCLUSION: L'inclusion de patient·es en provenance d'unités de soins intensifs d'hôpitaux communautaires dans la recherche clinique en soins critiques a le potentiel d'augmenter substantiellement le recrutement et de diminuer le temps nécessaire à la complétion des études.

Health economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): a cost-effectiveness analysis.

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.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à comparer le rapport coût-efficacité d'un traitement avec probiotiques ajoutés aux soins habituels avec des soins habituels prodigués sans probiotiques chez les patients des soins intensifs sous ventilation mécanique dans le cadre de l'étude PROSPECT (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une évaluation de l'économie de la santé parallèlement à l'étude randomisée contrôlée PROSPECT (octobre 2013-mars 2019). Nous avons adopté le point de vue d'un payeur public de services de santé. Quarante-quatre unités de soins intensifs dans trois pays (Canada/États-Unis/Arabie saoudite) prenant soin de patients adultes gravement malades sous ventilation mécanique (n = 2650) ont été inclus. Les interventions ont été les suivantes : probiotiques (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administrés par voie entérale deux fois par jour. Nous avons recueilli les données concernant l'utilisation des ressources en soins de santé et estimé les coûts unitaires en dollars américains (USD) de 2019 sur un horizon temporel allant de la randomisation au congé de l'hôpital / décès. Nous avons calculé des rapports coût-efficacité différentiels (RCED) en comparant les probiotiques vs les soins habituels. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le coût différentiel par événement évité de pneumonie associée au ventilateur (PAV); les critères d'évaluation secondaires étaient les coûts par diarrhée associée au Clostridioides difficile (DACD), diarrhée associée aux antibiotiques (DAA) et mortalité évitées. L'incertitude a été étudiée à l'aide d'analyses d'amorçage et de sensibilité non paramétriques. RéSULTATS: Le coût moyen (écart type [ÉT]) par patient était de 66 914 (91 098) USD pour les patients randomisés au groupe probiotiques, avec une médiane [écart interquartile (ÉIQ)] de 42 947 USD [22 239 à 76 205]. En comparaison, pour ceux ne recevant pas de probiotiques, le coût moyen (ÉT) par patient était de 62 701 USD (78 676) (médiane [ÉIQ], 41 102 USD [23 170 à 75 140]; coût différentiel, 4213 USD; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95%, -2269 à 10 708). En matière de rapports coût-efficacité différentiels pour les événements de PAV ou DAA évités, les probiotiques étaient dominés par les soins habituels (plus coûteux, avec une efficacité similaire). Les RCED étaient de 1 473 400 USD par événement de DACD évitée (IC 95 %, non défini) et de 396 764 USD par décès évité (IC 95 %, non défini). Les courbes d'acceptabilité coût-efficacité révèlent que les probiotiques n'étaient pas rentables dans de larges gammes de seuils plausibles de volonté de payer. Les analyses de sensibilité n'ont pas modifié les conclusions. CONCLUSION: Les probiotiques utilisés pour prévenir la PAV chez les patients gravement malades n'étaient pas rentables. Enregistrement de l'étude : www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01782755); enregistrée le 4 février 2013.

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an economic evaluation as part of the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains ill-defined. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluating remdesivir. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals from Aug. 14, 2020, to Apr. 1, 2021, were randomly assigned to receive remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone. Taking a public health care payer's perspective, we collected in-hospital outcomes and health care resource utilization alongside estimated unit costs in 2020 Canadian dollars over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge or death. Data from 1281 adults admitted to 52 hospitals in 6 Canadian provinces were analyzed. RESULTS: The total mean cost per patient was $37 918 (standard deviation [SD] $42 413; 95% confidence interval [CI] $34 617 to $41 220) for patients randomly assigned to the remdesivir group and $38 026 (SD $46 021; 95% CI $34 480 to $41 573) for patients receiving usual care (incremental cost -$108 [95% CI -$4953 to $4737], p > 0.9). The difference in proportions of in-hospital deaths between remdesivir and usual care groups was -3.9% (18.7% v. 22.6%, 95% CI -8.3% to 1.0%, p = 0.09). The difference in proportions of incident invasive mechanical ventilation events between groups was -7.0% (8.0% v. 15.0%, 95% CI -10.6% to -3.4%, p = 0.006), whereas the difference in proportions of total mechanical ventilation events between groups was -5.7% (16.4% v. 22.1%, 95% CI -10.0% to -1.4%, p = 0.01). Remdesivir was the dominant intervention (but only marginally less costly, with mildly lower mortality) with an incalculable incremental cost effectiveness ratio; we report results of incremental costs and incremental effects separately. For willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0, $20 000, $50 000 and $100 000 per death averted, a strategy using remdesivir was cost-effective in 60%, 67%, 74% and 79% of simulations, respectively. The remdesivir costs were the fifth highest cost driver, offset by shorter lengths of stay and less mechanical ventilation. INTERPRETATION: From a health care payer perspective, treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with remdesivir and usual care appears to be preferrable to treating with usual care alone, albeit with marginal incremental cost and small clinical effects. The added cost of remdesivir was offset by shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and less need for ventilation. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT04330690.

Health-related quality-of-life and health-utility reporting in critical care.

Mortality is a well-established patient-important outcome in critical care studies. In contrast, morbidity is less uniformly reported (given the myriad of critical care illnesses and complications of each) but may have a common end-impact on a patient's functional capacity and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). Survival with a poor quality-of-life may not be acceptable depending on individual patient values and preferences. Hence, as mortality decreases within critical care, it becomes increasingly important to measure intensive care unit (ICU) survivor HRQoL. HRQoL measurements with a preference-based scoring algorithm can be converted into health utilities on a scale anchored at 0 (representing death) and 1 (representing full health). They can be combined with survival to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), which are one of the most widely used methods of combining morbidity and mortality into a composite outcome. Although QALYs have been use for health-technology assessment decision-making, an emerging and novel role would be to inform clinical decision-making for patients, families and healthcare providers about what expected HRQoL may be during and after ICU care. Critical care randomized control trials (RCTs) have not routinely measured or reported HRQoL (until more recently), likely due to incapacity of some patients to participate in patient-reported outcome measures. Further differences in HRQoL measurement tools can lead to non-comparable values. To this end, we propose the validation of a gold-standard HRQoL tool in critical care, specifically the EQ-5D-5L. Both combined health-utility and mortality (disaggregated) and QALYs (aggregated) can be reported, with disaggregation allowing for determination of which components are the main drivers of the QALY outcome. Increased use of HRQoL, health-utility, and QALYs in critical care RCTs has the potential to: (1) Increase the likelihood of finding important effects if they exist; (2) improve research efficiency; and (3) help inform optimal management of critically ill patients allowing for decision-making about their HRQoL, in additional to traditional health-technology assessments.

LIBERATE: a study protocol for midodrine for the early liberation from vasopressor support in the intensive care unit (LIBERATE): protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) vasopressors to support hemodynamics are a primary indication for intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Utilization of oral vasopressor therapy may offer an alternative to IV vasopressor therapy in the ICU, thus decreasing the need for ICU admission. Oral vasopressors, such as midodrine, have been used for hemodynamic support in non-critically ill patients, but their evaluation in critically ill patients to potentially spare IV vasopressor therapy has been limited. METHODS: The LIBERATE study will be a multicenter, parallel-group, blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial. It will recruit adult (i.e., age ≥ 18 years) critically ill patients receiving stable or decreasing doses of IV vasopressors. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive either midodrine 10 mg administered enterally every 8 h or placebo until 24 h post-discontinuation of IV vasopressors. The primary outcome will be ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality at 90 days, hospital length of stay, length of IV vasopressor support, re-initiation of IV vasopressors, rates of ICU readmission, and occurrence of AEs. Health economic outcomes including ICU, hospital and healthcare costs, and cost-effectiveness will be evaluated. Pre-planned subgroup analyses include age, sex, frailty, severity of illness, etiology of shock, and comorbid conditions. DISCUSSION: LIBERATE will rigorously evaluate the effect of oral midodrine on duration of ICU stay and IV vasopressor support in critically ill patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05058612 . Registered on September 28, 2021.

Improving the quality of the performance and delivery of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) to critically ill patients across a healthcare system: QUALITY CRRT: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is a continuous form of dialysis used to support critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. The ideal delivery of CRRT requires ongoing monitoring and reporting to adjust practice and deliver optimal therapy. However, this practice occurs variably. METHODS: QUALITY CRRT is a multicentre, prospective, stepped-wedged, interrupted time series (ITS) evaluation of the effectiveness, safety and cost of implementing a multifaceted CRRT quality assurance and improvement programme across an entire healthcare system. This study will focus on the standardisation of CRRT programmes with similar structure, process and outcome metrics by the reporting of CRRT key performance indicators (KPIs). The primary outcome will be the quarterly performance of CRRT KPIs. Secondary outcomes will include patient-centred outcomes and economic outcomes. Analysis will compare pre-implementation and post-implementation groups as well as for the performance of KPIs using an ITS methodology. The health economic evaluation will include a within-study analysis and a longer-term model-based analysis. DISCUSSION: The effective delivery of CRRT to critically ill patients ideally requires a standardised approach of best practice assessment and ongoing audit and feedback of standardised performance measures. QUALITY CRRT will test the application of this strategy stakeholder engagement and stepped-wedged implementation across an entire healthcare system. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethics approval. We will plan to publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04221932. PROTOCOL VERSION: 1.0 (15 June 2020).

Needs Assessment Survey Identifying Research Processes Which may be Improved by Automation or Artificial Intelligence: ICU Community Modeling and Artificial Intelligence to Improve Efficiency (ICU-Comma).

BACKGROUND: Critical care research in Canada is conducted primarily in academically-affiliated intensive care units with established research infrastructure, including research coordinators (RCs). Recently, efforts have been made to engage community hospital ICUs in research albeit with barriers. Automation or artificial intelligence (AI) could aid the performance of routine research tasks. It is unclear which research study processes might be improved through AI automation. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Canadian ICU research personnel. The survey contained items characterizing opinions regarding research processes that may be amenable to AI automation. We distributed the questionnaire via email distribution lists of 3 Canadian research societies. Open-ended questions were analyzed using a thematic content analysis approach. RESULTS: A total of 49 survey responses were received (response rate: 8%). Tasks that respondents felt were time-consuming/tedious/tiresome included: screening for potentially eligible patients (74%), inputting data into case report forms (65%), and preparing internal tracking logs (53%). Tasks that respondents felt could be performed by AI automation included: screening for eligible patients (59%), inputting data into case report forms (55%), preparing internal tracking logs (51%), and randomizing patients into studies (45%). Open-ended questions identified enthusiasm for AI automation to improve information accuracy and efficiency while freeing up RCs to perform tasks that require human interaction. This enthusiasm was tempered by the need for proper AI education and oversight. CONCLUSIONS: There were balanced supportive (increased efficiency and re-allocation of tasks) and challenges (informational accuracy and oversight) with regards to AI automation in ICU research.

Innovation, conservation, and repurposing of gene function in root cell type development.

Plant species have evolved myriads of solutions, including complex cell type development and regulation, to adapt to dynamic environments. To understand this cellular diversity, we profiled tomato root cell type translatomes. Using xylem differentiation in tomato, examples of functional innovation, repurposing, and conservation of transcription factors are described, relative to the model plant Arabidopsis. Repurposing and innovation of genes are further observed within an exodermis regulatory network and illustrate its function. Comparative translatome analyses of rice, tomato, and Arabidopsis cell populations suggest increased expression conservation of root meristems compared with other homologous populations. In addition, the functions of constitutively expressed genes are more conserved than those of cell type/tissue-enriched genes. These observations suggest that higher order properties of cell type and pan-cell type regulation are evolutionarily conserved between plants and animals.

Health-Related Quality-of-Life and Cost Utility Analyses in Critical Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Cost utility analyses compare the costs and health outcome of interventions, with a denominator of quality-adjusted life year, a generic health utility measure combining both quality and quantity of life. Cost utility analyses are difficult to compare when methods are not standardized. It is unclear how cost utility analyses are measured/reported in critical care and what methodologic challenges cost utility analyses pose in this setting. This may lead to differences precluding cost utility analyses comparisons. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of cost utility analyses conducted in critical care. Our objectives were to understand: 1) methodologic characteristics, 2) how health-related quality-of-life was measured/reported, and 3) what costs were reported/measured. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched for cost utility analyses in critical care in MEDLINE, Embase, American College of Physicians Journal Club, CENTRAL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews' selected subset of archived versions of UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and American Economic Association electronic databases from inception to April 30, 2020. SETTING: Adult ICUs. PATIENTS: Adult critically ill patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 8,926 citations, 80 cost utility analyse studies were eligible. The time horizon most commonly reported was lifetime (59%). For health utility reporting, health-related quality-of-life was infrequently measured (29% reported), with only 5% of studies reporting baseline health-related quality-of-life. Indirect utility measures (generic, preference-based health utility measurement tools) were reported in 85% of studies (majority Euro-quality-of-life-5 Domains, 52%). Methods of estimating health-related quality-of-life were seldom used when the patient was incapacitated: imputation (19%), assigning fixed utilities for incapacitation (19%), and surrogates reporting on behalf of incapacitated patients (5%). For cost utility reporting transparency, separate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years were both reported in only 76% of studies. Disaggregated quality-adjusted life years (reporting separate health utility and life years) were described in only 34% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified deficiencies which warrant recommendations (standardized measurement/reporting of resource use/unit costs/health-related quality-of-life/methodological preferences) for improved design, conduct, and reporting of future cost utility analyses in critical care.

Economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): study protocol.

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.

Probiotics in hospitalized adult patients: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

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.