RESUMO
Objective: Intensive care unit (ICU) cost estimates are critical to achieving healthcare system efficiency and sustainability. We aimed to review the published literature describing ICU costs in Australia. Design: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that estimated the cost of ICU care in Australia. Studies conducted in specific patient cohorts or on specific treatments were excluded. Data sources: Relevant studies were sourced from a previously published review (1970-2016), a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE (2016-5 May 2023), and reference checking. Review methods: A tool was developed to assess study quality and risk of bias (maximum score 57/57). Total and component costs were tabulated and indexed to 2022 Australian Dollars. Costing methodologies and study quality assessments were summarised. Results: Six costing studies met the inclusion criteria. Study quality scores were low (15/41 to 35/47). Most studies were conducted only in tertiary metropolitan public ICUs; sample sizes ranged from 100 to 10,204 patients. One study used data collected within the past 10 years. Mean daily ICU costs ranged from $966 to $5381 and mean total ICU admission costs $4888 to $14,606. Three studies used a top-down costing approach, deriving cost estimates from budget reports. The other three studies used both bottom-up and top-down costing approaches. Bottom-up approaches collected individual patient resource use. Conclusions: Available ICU cost estimates are largely outdated and lack granular data. Future research is needed to estimate ICU costs that better reflect current practice and patient complexity and to determine the best methods for generating these estimates.
RESUMO
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.