Methods of data collection and analysis for the economic evaluation alongside a national, multi-centre trial in the UK: Conventional ventilation or ECMO for Severe Adult Respiratory Failure (CESAR)

BackgroundExtracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) is a technology used in treatment of patients with severe but potentially reversible respiratory failure. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial (CESAR) was funded in the UK to compare care including ECMO with conventional intensive care management. The protocol and funding for the CESAR trial included plans for economic data collection and analysis. Given the high cost of treatment, ECMO is considered an expensive technology for many funding systems. However, conventional treatment for severe respiratory failure is also one of the more costly forms of care in any health system.Methods/DesignThe objectives of the economic evaluation are to compare the costs of a policy of referral for ECMO with those of conventional treatment; to assess cost-effectiveness and the cost-utility at 6 months follow-up; and to assess the cost-utility over a predicted lifetime. Resources used by patients in the trial are identified. Resource use data are collected from clinical report forms and through follow up interviews with patients. Unit costs of hospital intensive care resources are based on parallel research on cost functions in UK NHS intensive care units. Other unit costs are based on published NHS tariffs. Cost effectiveness analysis uses the outcome: survival without severe disability. Cost utility analysis is based on quality adjusted life years gained based on the Euroqol EQ-5D at 6 months. Sensitivity analysis is planned to vary assumptions about transport costs and method of costing intensive care. Uncertainty will also be expressed in analysis of individual patient data. Probabilities of cost effectiveness given different funding thresholds will be estimated.DiscussionIn our view it is important to record our methods in detail and present them before publication of the results of the trial so that a record of detail not normally found in the final trial reports can be made available in the public domain.Trial RegistrationsThe CESAR trial registration number is ISRCTN47279827.

[1]  P. Aegerter,et al.  A cost-effectiveness analysis of stays in intensive care units , 2001, Intensive Care Medicine.

[2]  J. Goodier Health Survey for England 1995 , 1997 .

[3]  M. Mugford,et al.  Visiting adult patients in intensive care: the importance of relatives' travel and time costs. , 2006, Intensive & critical care nursing.

[4]  A. B. Prasad,et al.  British National Formulary , 1994 .

[5]  農林水産奨励会農林水産政策情報センター,et al.  The green book : appraisal and evaluation in central government , 2003 .

[6]  C. Hibbert Development and application of a method for estimating daily case-mix adjusted costs of adult critical care units. , 2007 .

[7]  D C Angus,et al.  Quality-adjusted survival in the first year after the acute respiratory distress syndrome. , 2001, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[8]  D. Whynes,et al.  On approximations in treatment costing. , 1995, Health economics.

[9]  S. Petrou,et al.  Cost effectiveness analysis of neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation based on four year results from the UK Collaborative ECMO Trial , 2004, Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[10]  M Johannesson,et al.  On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. , 1993, Journal of health economics.

[11]  J J Osborn,et al.  Prolonged extracorporeal oxygenation for acute post-traumatic respiratory failure (shock-lung syndrome). Use of the Bramson membrane lung. , 1972, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  J. Vincent,et al.  Survival and Quality of Life after Prolonged Intensive Care Unit Stay , 2007, Anaesthesia and intensive care.

[13]  Arthur S Slutsky,et al.  One-year outcomes in survivors of the acute respiratory distress syndrome. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research , 2000 .

[15]  Mark S. Roberts,et al.  Understanding costs and cost-effectiveness in critical care: report from the second American Thoracic Society workshop on outcomes research. , 2002, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[16]  Robert H. Bartlett,et al.  Extracorporeal Life Support for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Adults , 2004, Annals of surgery.

[17]  P. Rycus,et al.  Extracorporeal Life Support Registry Report 2004 , 2005, ASAIO journal.

[18]  T. Roberts,et al.  Economic evaluation and randomised controlled trial of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: UK collaborative trial. The Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Economics Working Group. , 1998, BMJ.

[19]  U. Janssens,et al.  Five-year survival, quality of life, and individual costs of 303 consecutive medical intensive care patients—A cost-utility analysis , 2005, Critical care medicine.

[20]  T. Evans,et al.  Comparison of nose and face mask CPAP therapy for sleep apnoea , 1998, Thorax.

[21]  F. Jardin,et al.  Improved prognosis of acute respiratory distress syndrome 15 years on , 1999, Intensive Care Medicine.

[22]  A. Wilson The British National Formulary. , 1963, The Practitioner.

[23]  J. Posnett,et al.  Indirect cost in economic evaluation: the opportunity cost of unpaid inputs. , 1996, Health economics.

[24]  M Knapp,et al.  Reduced list costings: examination of an informed short cut in mental health research. , 1993, Health economics.

[25]  A H Briggs,et al.  Quantifying stochastic uncertainty and presenting results of cost-effectiveness analyses , 2001, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[26]  P. Kirshbom,et al.  Cost-utility analysis of salvage cardiac extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in children. , 2005, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[27]  Duncan Macrae,et al.  UK collaborative randomised trial of neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation , 1996, The Lancet.

[28]  G. Peek,et al.  Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for adult respiratory failure. , 1997, Chest.

[29]  Andrew Briggs,et al.  Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves--facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. , 2004, Health economics.

[30]  Tracy E Roberts,et al.  Economic evaluation and randomised controlled trial of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: UK collaborative trial , 1998 .

[31]  D. Elbourne,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness of Neonatal Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Based on 7-Year Results From the United Kingdom Collaborative ECMO Trial , 2006, Pediatrics.

[32]  A. Briggs,et al.  Statistical Methods for Cost-Effectiveness Research: A Guide to Current Issues and Future Developments , 2003 .

[33]  S. Wilson Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

[34]  R. Bartlett,et al.  Extracorporeal Life Support Registry Report 1995. , 1997, ASAIO journal.

[35]  M. Mugford,et al.  CESAR: conventional ventilatory support vs extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure , 2006, BMC Health Services Research.

[36]  M. Drummond,et al.  Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory with Practice , 2002 .

[37]  K. Steinberg,et al.  Improved survival of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): 1983-1993. , 1995, JAMA.