Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 8, 5

Health Economic Evaluations of Sepsis Interventions in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Systematic Review


Health Economic Evaluations of Sepsis Interventions in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Systematic Review

Alisa M Higgins et al. J Intensive Care.


Background: Sepsis is a global health priority. Interventions to reduce the burden of sepsis need to be both effective and cost-effective. We performed a systematic review of the literature on health economic evaluations of sepsis treatments in critically ill adult patients and summarised the evidence for cost-effectiveness.

Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using thesaurus (e.g. MeSH) and free-text terms related to sepsis and economic evaluations. We included all articles that reported, in any language, an economic evaluation of an intervention for the management of sepsis in critically ill adult patients. Data extracted included study details, intervention details, economic evaluation methodology, and outcomes. Included studies were appraised for reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

Results: We identified 50 records representing 46 economic evaluations for a variety of interventions including antibiotics (n = 5), fluid therapy (n = 2), early goal-directed therapy and other resuscitation protocols (n = 8), immunoglobulins (n = 2), and interventions no longer in clinical use such as monoclonal antibodies (n = 7) and drotrecogin alfa (n = 13). Twelve (26%) evaluations were of excellent reporting quality. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from dominant (lower costs and higher effectiveness) for early goal-directed therapy, albumin, and a multifaceted sepsis education program to dominated (higher costs and lower effectiveness) for polymerase chain reaction assays (LightCycler SeptiFast testing MGRADE®, SepsiTest™, and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay). ICERs varied widely across evaluations, particularly in subgroup analyses.

Conclusions: There is wide variation in the cost-effectiveness of sepsis interventions. There remain important gaps in the literature, with no economic evaluations identified for several interventions routinely used in sepsis. Given the high economic and social burden of sepsis, high-quality economic evaluations are needed to increase our understanding of the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in routine clinical practice and to inform decision makers.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42018095980.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Economic evaluation; Sepsis; Septic shock; Systematic review.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.


Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram of study selection process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Number of published economic evaluations by 5-year period

Similar articles

See all similar articles


    1. Reinhart K, Daniels R, Kissoon N, Machado FR, Schachter RD, Finfer S. Recognizing sepsis as a global health priority - a WHO resolution. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):414–417. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1707170. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Torio CM, Moore BJ. National inpatient hospital costs: the most expensive conditions by payer, 2013. HCUP Statistical Brief #204. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2016.
    1. Angus DC, Barnato AE, Bell D, Bellomo R, Chong CR, Coats TJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of early goal-directed therapy for septic shock: the ARISE, ProCESS and ProMISe Investigators. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(9):1549–1560. doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3822-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Simpson SQ, Gaines M, Hussein Y, Badgett RG. Early goal-directed therapy for severe sepsis and septic shock: a living systematic review. J Crit Care. 2016;36:43–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.06.017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Xu JY, Chen QH, Liu SQ, Pan C, Xu XP, Han JB, et al. The effect of early goal-directed therapy on outcome in adult severe sepsis and septic shock patients: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Anesth Analg. 2016;123(2):371–381. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001278. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources