Journal of medical economics · 2026
Cost-effectiveness of vasopressin in the treatment of septic shock: insights from a European societal perspective.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Walter Evelyn, Ghinelli Federico, Goyer Isabelle, Leone Marc, Pirracchio Romain
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Septic shock is a life-threatening condition associated with high morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Vasopressin (VA) is recommended as a second-line vasopressor in septic shock, but its cost-effectiveness-especially regarding the timing of administration-remains unclear in European settings.
METHODS: A hybrid decision-analytic model combining a short-term decision tree and a long-term Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of VA in adult patients with septic shock. The analysis was conducted from both a healthcare payer and societal perspective. Clinical efficacy inputs were derived from high-quality meta-analyses and systematic reviews. The model incorporated health-states such as end-stage renal-disease (ESRD) with need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), atrial fibrillation (AF), and mortality over a lifetime horizon. Two comparisons were analyzed: VA versus No VA, and early (within 3-12 h of shock onset) versus late VA administration. Outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and direct and indirect cost estimates.
RESULTS: Adding VA was a dominant strategy, improving clinical outcomes while reducing lifetime costs by 10,570 €per patient and yielding 0.09 additional QALYs. VA therapy reduced RRT dependence by 2.5% and increased AF-free survival by 6.2%. Early VA administration was even more cost-effective, providing 0.55 additional QALYs, 0.77 extra LYs, and 4,746 €in additional savings compared to late administration.
CONCLUSION: Second-line VA is a cost-effective intervention for septic shock, notably when initiated early. These findings support guideline recommendations for early vasopressor use and emphasize the clinical and economic value of timely VA therapy.
METHODS: A hybrid decision-analytic model combining a short-term decision tree and a long-term Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of VA in adult patients with septic shock. The analysis was conducted from both a healthcare payer and societal perspective. Clinical efficacy inputs were derived from high-quality meta-analyses and systematic reviews. The model incorporated health-states such as end-stage renal-disease (ESRD) with need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), atrial fibrillation (AF), and mortality over a lifetime horizon. Two comparisons were analyzed: VA versus No VA, and early (within 3-12 h of shock onset) versus late VA administration. Outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and direct and indirect cost estimates.
RESULTS: Adding VA was a dominant strategy, improving clinical outcomes while reducing lifetime costs by 10,570 €per patient and yielding 0.09 additional QALYs. VA therapy reduced RRT dependence by 2.5% and increased AF-free survival by 6.2%. Early VA administration was even more cost-effective, providing 0.55 additional QALYs, 0.77 extra LYs, and 4,746 €in additional savings compared to late administration.
CONCLUSION: Second-line VA is a cost-effective intervention for septic shock, notably when initiated early. These findings support guideline recommendations for early vasopressor use and emphasize the clinical and economic value of timely VA therapy.