Thorax · 2022
Cost-effectiveness of outpatient versus inpatient non-invasive ventilation setup in obesity hypoventilation syndrome: the OPIP trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАEquivalence TrialНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Murphy Patrick Brian, Patout Maxime, Arbane Gill, Mandal Swapna, Kaltsakas Georgios, Polkey Michael I, Elliott Mark, Muir Jean-François, Douiri Abdel, Parkin David, Janssens Jean-Paul, Pépin Jean Louis, Cuvelier Antoine, Flach Clare, Hart Nicholas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that patients with obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) are electively admitted for inpatient initiation of home non-invasive ventilation (NIV). We hypothesised that outpatient NIV setup would be more cost-effective.
METHODS: Patients with stable OHS referred to six participating European centres for home NIV setup were recruited to an open-labelled clinical trial. Patients were randomised via web-based system using stratification to inpatient setup, with standard fixed level NIV and titrated during an attended overnight respiratory study or outpatient setup using an autotitrating NIV device and a set protocol, including home oximetry. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness at 3 months with daytime carbon dioxide (PaCO2) as a non-inferiority safety outcome; non-inferiority margin 0.5 kPa. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) was measured using EQ-5D-5L (5 level EQ-5D tool) and costs were converted using purchasing power parities to £(GBP).
RESULTS: Between May 2015 and March 2018, 82 patients were randomised. Age 59±14 years, body mass index 47±10 kg/m2 and PaCO2 6.8±0.6 kPa. Safety analysis demonstrated no difference in ∆PaCO2 (difference -0.27 kPa, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.17 kPa). Efficacy analysis showed similar total per-patient costs (inpatient £2962±£580, outpatient £3169±£525; difference £188.20, 95% CI -£61.61 to £438.01) and similar improvement in HRQL (EQ-5D-5L difference -0.006, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.04). There were no differences in secondary outcomes.
DISCUSSION: There was no difference in medium-term cost-effectiveness, with similar clinical effectiveness, between outpatient and inpatient NIV setup. The home NIV setup strategy can be led by local resource demand and patient and clinician preference.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02342899 and ISRCTN51420481.
METHODS: Patients with stable OHS referred to six participating European centres for home NIV setup were recruited to an open-labelled clinical trial. Patients were randomised via web-based system using stratification to inpatient setup, with standard fixed level NIV and titrated during an attended overnight respiratory study or outpatient setup using an autotitrating NIV device and a set protocol, including home oximetry. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness at 3 months with daytime carbon dioxide (PaCO2) as a non-inferiority safety outcome; non-inferiority margin 0.5 kPa. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) was measured using EQ-5D-5L (5 level EQ-5D tool) and costs were converted using purchasing power parities to £(GBP).
RESULTS: Between May 2015 and March 2018, 82 patients were randomised. Age 59±14 years, body mass index 47±10 kg/m2 and PaCO2 6.8±0.6 kPa. Safety analysis demonstrated no difference in ∆PaCO2 (difference -0.27 kPa, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.17 kPa). Efficacy analysis showed similar total per-patient costs (inpatient £2962±£580, outpatient £3169±£525; difference £188.20, 95% CI -£61.61 to £438.01) and similar improvement in HRQL (EQ-5D-5L difference -0.006, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.04). There were no differences in secondary outcomes.
DISCUSSION: There was no difference in medium-term cost-effectiveness, with similar clinical effectiveness, between outpatient and inpatient NIV setup. The home NIV setup strategy can be led by local resource demand and patient and clinician preference.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02342899 and ISRCTN51420481.