Thorax · 2020
Cost-effectiveness of positive airway pressure modalities in obesity hypoventilation syndrome with severe obstructive sleep apnoea.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Masa Juan F, Mokhlesi Babak, Benítez Iván, Gómez de Terreros Caro Francisco Javier, Sánchez-Quiroga M-Ángeles, Romero Auxiliadora, Caballero Candela, Alonso-Álvarez Maria Luz, Ordax-Carbajo Estrella, Gómez-García Teresa, González Mónica, López-Martín Soledad, Marin Jose M, Martí Sergi, Díaz-Cambriles Trinidad, Chiner Eusebi, Egea Carlos, Barca Javier, Vázquez-Polo Francisco-José, Negrín Miguel Angel, Martel-Escobar María, Barbé Ferran, Corral-Peñafiel Jaime, Spanish Sleep Network
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is treated with either non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or CPAP, but there are no long-term cost-effectiveness studies comparing the two treatment modalities.
OBJECTIVES: We performed a large, multicentre, randomised, open-label controlled study to determine the comparative long-term cost and effectiveness of NIV versus CPAP in patients with OHS with severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) using hospitalisation days as the primary outcome measure.
METHODS: Hospital resource utilisation and within trial costs were evaluated against the difference in effectiveness based on the primary outcome (hospitalisation days/year, transformed and non-transformed in monetary term). Costs and effectiveness were estimated from a log-normal distribution using a Bayesian approach. A secondary analysis by adherence subgroups was performed.
RESULTS: In total, 363 patients were selected, 215 were randomised and 202 were available for the analysis. The median (IQR) follow-up was 3.01 (2.91-3.14) years for NIV group and 3.00 (2.92-3.17) years for CPAP. The mean (SD) Bayesian estimated hospital days was 2.13 (0.73) for CPAP and 1.89 (0.78) for NIV. The mean (SD) Bayesian estimated cost per patient/year in the NIV arm, excluding hospitalisation costs, was €2075.98 (91.6), which was higher than the cost in the CPAP arm of €1219.06 (52.3); mean difference €857.6 (105.5). CPAP was more cost-effective than NIV (99.5% probability) because longer hospital stay in the CPAP arm was compensated for by its lower costs. Similar findings were observed in the high and low adherence subgroups.
CONCLUSION: CPAP is more cost-effective than NIV; therefore, CPAP should be the preferred treatment for patients with OHS with severe OSA.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01405976.
OBJECTIVES: We performed a large, multicentre, randomised, open-label controlled study to determine the comparative long-term cost and effectiveness of NIV versus CPAP in patients with OHS with severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) using hospitalisation days as the primary outcome measure.
METHODS: Hospital resource utilisation and within trial costs were evaluated against the difference in effectiveness based on the primary outcome (hospitalisation days/year, transformed and non-transformed in monetary term). Costs and effectiveness were estimated from a log-normal distribution using a Bayesian approach. A secondary analysis by adherence subgroups was performed.
RESULTS: In total, 363 patients were selected, 215 were randomised and 202 were available for the analysis. The median (IQR) follow-up was 3.01 (2.91-3.14) years for NIV group and 3.00 (2.92-3.17) years for CPAP. The mean (SD) Bayesian estimated hospital days was 2.13 (0.73) for CPAP and 1.89 (0.78) for NIV. The mean (SD) Bayesian estimated cost per patient/year in the NIV arm, excluding hospitalisation costs, was €2075.98 (91.6), which was higher than the cost in the CPAP arm of €1219.06 (52.3); mean difference €857.6 (105.5). CPAP was more cost-effective than NIV (99.5% probability) because longer hospital stay in the CPAP arm was compensated for by its lower costs. Similar findings were observed in the high and low adherence subgroups.
CONCLUSION: CPAP is more cost-effective than NIV; therefore, CPAP should be the preferred treatment for patients with OHS with severe OSA.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01405976.