Thorax · 2021
Cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Hall James, Turner Alice Margaret, Dretzke Janine, Moore David, Jowett Sue
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic disease associated with recurring exacerbations, which influence morbidity and mortality for the patient, while placing significant resource burdens on healthcare systems. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in a domiciliary setting can help prevent admissions, but the economic evidence to support NIV use is limited.
METHODS: A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis from the UK National Health Service perspective compared the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care for two end-stage COPD populations; a stable COPD population commencing treatment with no recent hospital admission; and a posthospital population starting treatment following admission to hospital for an exacerbation. Hospitalisation rates in patients receiving domiciliary NIV compared with usual care were derived from randomised controlled studies in a recent systematic review. Other model parameters were updated with recent evidence.
RESULTS: At the threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) domiciliary NIV is 99.9% likely cost-effective in a posthospital population, but unlikely (4%) to be cost-effective in stable populations. The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was £11 318/QALY gained in the posthospital population and £27 380/QALY gained in the stable population. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to longer-term readmission and mortality risks, and duration of benefit from NIV. Indeed, for stable Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) for stage 4 patients, or with higher mortality and exacerbation risks, ICERs were close to the £20 000/QALY threshold.
CONCLUSION: Domiciliary NIV is likely cost-effective for posthospitalised patients, with uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV in stable patients with COPD on which further research should focus.
METHODS: A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis from the UK National Health Service perspective compared the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care for two end-stage COPD populations; a stable COPD population commencing treatment with no recent hospital admission; and a posthospital population starting treatment following admission to hospital for an exacerbation. Hospitalisation rates in patients receiving domiciliary NIV compared with usual care were derived from randomised controlled studies in a recent systematic review. Other model parameters were updated with recent evidence.
RESULTS: At the threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) domiciliary NIV is 99.9% likely cost-effective in a posthospital population, but unlikely (4%) to be cost-effective in stable populations. The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was £11 318/QALY gained in the posthospital population and £27 380/QALY gained in the stable population. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to longer-term readmission and mortality risks, and duration of benefit from NIV. Indeed, for stable Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) for stage 4 patients, or with higher mortality and exacerbation risks, ICERs were close to the £20 000/QALY threshold.
CONCLUSION: Domiciliary NIV is likely cost-effective for posthospitalised patients, with uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV in stable patients with COPD on which further research should focus.