Cargando…

Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fowler, Robert A, Mittmann, Nicole, Geerts, William H, Heels-Ansdell, Diane, Gould, Michael K, Guyatt, Gordon, Krahn, Murray, Finfer, Simon, Pinto, Ruxandra, Chan, Brian, Ormanidhi, Orges, Arabi, Yaseen, Qushmaq, Ismael, Rocha, Marcelo G, Dodek, Peter, McIntyre, Lauralyn, Hall, Richard, Ferguson, Niall D, Mehta, Sangeeta, Marshall, John C, Doig, Christopher James, Muscedere, John, Jacka, Michael J, Klinger, James R, Vlahakis, Nicholas, Orford, Neil, Seppelt, Ian, Skrobik, Yoanna K, Sud, Sachin, Cade, John F, Cooper, Jamie, Cook, Deborah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4413997/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25528663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-502
_version_ 1782368868871700480
author Fowler, Robert A
Mittmann, Nicole
Geerts, William H
Heels-Ansdell, Diane
Gould, Michael K
Guyatt, Gordon
Krahn, Murray
Finfer, Simon
Pinto, Ruxandra
Chan, Brian
Ormanidhi, Orges
Arabi, Yaseen
Qushmaq, Ismael
Rocha, Marcelo G
Dodek, Peter
McIntyre, Lauralyn
Hall, Richard
Ferguson, Niall D
Mehta, Sangeeta
Marshall, John C
Doig, Christopher James
Muscedere, John
Jacka, Michael J
Klinger, James R
Vlahakis, Nicholas
Orford, Neil
Seppelt, Ian
Skrobik, Yoanna K
Sud, Sachin
Cade, John F
Cooper, Jamie
Cook, Deborah
author_facet Fowler, Robert A
Mittmann, Nicole
Geerts, William H
Heels-Ansdell, Diane
Gould, Michael K
Guyatt, Gordon
Krahn, Murray
Finfer, Simon
Pinto, Ruxandra
Chan, Brian
Ormanidhi, Orges
Arabi, Yaseen
Qushmaq, Ismael
Rocha, Marcelo G
Dodek, Peter
McIntyre, Lauralyn
Hall, Richard
Ferguson, Niall D
Mehta, Sangeeta
Marshall, John C
Doig, Christopher James
Muscedere, John
Jacka, Michael J
Klinger, James R
Vlahakis, Nicholas
Orford, Neil
Seppelt, Ian
Skrobik, Yoanna K
Sud, Sachin
Cade, John F
Cooper, Jamie
Cook, Deborah
author_sort Fowler, Robert A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). E-PROTECT is a prospective and concurrent economic evaluation of the PROTECT trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of E-PROTECT is to identify and quantify the total (direct and indirect, variable and fixed) costs associated with the management of critically ill patients participating in the PROTECT trial, and, to combine costs and outcome results to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH versus UFH, from the acute healthcare system perspective, over a data-rich time horizon of ICU admission and hospital admission. We derive baseline characteristics and probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all enrolled patients. Total costs are derived from centers, proportional to the numbers of patients enrolled in each country. Direct costs include medication, physician and other personnel costs, diagnostic radiology and laboratory testing, operative and non-operative procedures, costs associated with bleeding, transfusions and treatment-related complications. Indirect costs include ICU and hospital ward overhead costs. Outcomes are the ratio of incremental costs per incremental effects of LMWH versus UFH during hospitalization; incremental cost to prevent a thrombosis at any site (primary outcome); incremental cost to prevent a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding event or episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (secondary outcomes) and incremental cost per life-year gained (tertiary outcome). Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be performed and confidence intervals for the estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness will be obtained using bootstrapping. DISCUSSION: This economic evaluation employs a prospective costing methodology concurrent with a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial, with a pre-specified analytic plan, outcome measures, subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This economic evaluation has received only peer-reviewed funding and funders will not play a role in the generation, analysis or decision to submit the manuscripts for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143. Date of registration: 10 September 2005. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-502) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4413997
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44139972015-04-30 Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial Fowler, Robert A Mittmann, Nicole Geerts, William H Heels-Ansdell, Diane Gould, Michael K Guyatt, Gordon Krahn, Murray Finfer, Simon Pinto, Ruxandra Chan, Brian Ormanidhi, Orges Arabi, Yaseen Qushmaq, Ismael Rocha, Marcelo G Dodek, Peter McIntyre, Lauralyn Hall, Richard Ferguson, Niall D Mehta, Sangeeta Marshall, John C Doig, Christopher James Muscedere, John Jacka, Michael J Klinger, James R Vlahakis, Nicholas Orford, Neil Seppelt, Ian Skrobik, Yoanna K Sud, Sachin Cade, John F Cooper, Jamie Cook, Deborah Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). E-PROTECT is a prospective and concurrent economic evaluation of the PROTECT trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of E-PROTECT is to identify and quantify the total (direct and indirect, variable and fixed) costs associated with the management of critically ill patients participating in the PROTECT trial, and, to combine costs and outcome results to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH versus UFH, from the acute healthcare system perspective, over a data-rich time horizon of ICU admission and hospital admission. We derive baseline characteristics and probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all enrolled patients. Total costs are derived from centers, proportional to the numbers of patients enrolled in each country. Direct costs include medication, physician and other personnel costs, diagnostic radiology and laboratory testing, operative and non-operative procedures, costs associated with bleeding, transfusions and treatment-related complications. Indirect costs include ICU and hospital ward overhead costs. Outcomes are the ratio of incremental costs per incremental effects of LMWH versus UFH during hospitalization; incremental cost to prevent a thrombosis at any site (primary outcome); incremental cost to prevent a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding event or episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (secondary outcomes) and incremental cost per life-year gained (tertiary outcome). Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be performed and confidence intervals for the estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness will be obtained using bootstrapping. DISCUSSION: This economic evaluation employs a prospective costing methodology concurrent with a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial, with a pre-specified analytic plan, outcome measures, subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This economic evaluation has received only peer-reviewed funding and funders will not play a role in the generation, analysis or decision to submit the manuscripts for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143. Date of registration: 10 September 2005. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-502) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-12-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4413997/ /pubmed/25528663 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-502 Text en © Fowler et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Fowler, Robert A
Mittmann, Nicole
Geerts, William H
Heels-Ansdell, Diane
Gould, Michael K
Guyatt, Gordon
Krahn, Murray
Finfer, Simon
Pinto, Ruxandra
Chan, Brian
Ormanidhi, Orges
Arabi, Yaseen
Qushmaq, Ismael
Rocha, Marcelo G
Dodek, Peter
McIntyre, Lauralyn
Hall, Richard
Ferguson, Niall D
Mehta, Sangeeta
Marshall, John C
Doig, Christopher James
Muscedere, John
Jacka, Michael J
Klinger, James R
Vlahakis, Nicholas
Orford, Neil
Seppelt, Ian
Skrobik, Yoanna K
Sud, Sachin
Cade, John F
Cooper, Jamie
Cook, Deborah
Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_short Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_sort economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (e-protect): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4413997/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25528663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-502
work_keys_str_mv AT fowlerroberta economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mittmannnicole economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT geertswilliamh economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT heelsansdelldiane economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT gouldmichaelk economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT guyattgordon economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT krahnmurray economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT finfersimon economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT pintoruxandra economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT chanbrian economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ormanidhiorges economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT arabiyaseen economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT qushmaqismael economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT rochamarcelog economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT dodekpeter economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mcintyrelauralyn economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT hallrichard economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT fergusonnialld economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mehtasangeeta economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT marshalljohnc economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT doigchristopherjames economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT muscederejohn economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT jackamichaelj economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT klingerjamesr economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vlahakisnicholas economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT orfordneil economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT seppeltian economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT skrobikyoannak economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT sudsachin economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT cadejohnf economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT cooperjamie economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT cookdeborah economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT economicevaluationoftheprophylaxisforthromboembolismincriticalcaretrialeprotectstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial