Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: decision analytic modelling using data from a feasibility trial

BACKGROUND: Standard prehospital management for Acute respiratory failure (ARF) involves controlled oxygen therapy. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment, however, it is uncertain whether this could improve outcomes and provide value for money....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thokala, Praveen, Fuller, Gordon W., Goodacre, Steve, Keating, Samuel, Herbert, Esther, Perkins, Gavin D., Rosser, Andy, Gunson, Imogen, Miller, Joshua, Ward, Matthew, Bradburn, Mike, Harris, Tim, Marsh, Maggie, Ren, Kate, Cooper, Cindy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7836588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33494699
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12873-021-00404-8
_version_ 1783642781518921728
author Thokala, Praveen
Fuller, Gordon W.
Goodacre, Steve
Keating, Samuel
Herbert, Esther
Perkins, Gavin D.
Rosser, Andy
Gunson, Imogen
Miller, Joshua
Ward, Matthew
Bradburn, Mike
Harris, Tim
Marsh, Maggie
Ren, Kate
Cooper, Cindy
author_facet Thokala, Praveen
Fuller, Gordon W.
Goodacre, Steve
Keating, Samuel
Herbert, Esther
Perkins, Gavin D.
Rosser, Andy
Gunson, Imogen
Miller, Joshua
Ward, Matthew
Bradburn, Mike
Harris, Tim
Marsh, Maggie
Ren, Kate
Cooper, Cindy
author_sort Thokala, Praveen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Standard prehospital management for Acute respiratory failure (ARF) involves controlled oxygen therapy. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment, however, it is uncertain whether this could improve outcomes and provide value for money. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prehospital CPAP in ARF. METHODS: A cost-utility economic evaluation was performed using a probabilistic decision tree model synthesising available evidence. The model consisted of a hypothetical cohort of patients in a representative ambulance service with undifferentiated ARF, receiving standard oxygen therapy or prehospital CPAP. Costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using methods recommended by NICE. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, using CPAP effectiveness estimates form the ACUTE trial, the mean expected costs of standard care and prehospital CPAP were £15,201 and £14,850 respectively and the corresponding mean expected QALYs were 1.190 and 1.128, respectively. The mean ICER estimated as standard oxygen therapy compared to prehospital CPAP was £5685 per QALY which indicated that standard oxygen therapy strategy was likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY (67% probability). The scenario analysis, using effectiveness estimates from an updated meta-analysis, suggested that prehospital CPAP was more effective (mean incremental QALYs of 0.157), but also more expensive (mean incremental costs of £1522), than standard care. The mean ICER, estimated as prehospital CPAP compared to standard care, was £9712 per QALY. At the £20,000 per QALY prehospital CPAP was highly likely to be the most cost-effective strategy (94%). CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness of prehospital CPAP depends upon the estimate of effectiveness. When based on a small pragmatic feasibility trial, standard oxygen therapy is cost-effective. When based on meta-analysis of heterogeneous trials, CPAP is cost-effective. Value of information analyses support commissioning of a large pragmatic effectiveness trial, providing feasibility and plausibility conditions are met. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-021-00404-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7836588
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78365882021-01-27 Cost-effectiveness of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: decision analytic modelling using data from a feasibility trial Thokala, Praveen Fuller, Gordon W. Goodacre, Steve Keating, Samuel Herbert, Esther Perkins, Gavin D. Rosser, Andy Gunson, Imogen Miller, Joshua Ward, Matthew Bradburn, Mike Harris, Tim Marsh, Maggie Ren, Kate Cooper, Cindy BMC Emerg Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Standard prehospital management for Acute respiratory failure (ARF) involves controlled oxygen therapy. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment, however, it is uncertain whether this could improve outcomes and provide value for money. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prehospital CPAP in ARF. METHODS: A cost-utility economic evaluation was performed using a probabilistic decision tree model synthesising available evidence. The model consisted of a hypothetical cohort of patients in a representative ambulance service with undifferentiated ARF, receiving standard oxygen therapy or prehospital CPAP. Costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using methods recommended by NICE. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, using CPAP effectiveness estimates form the ACUTE trial, the mean expected costs of standard care and prehospital CPAP were £15,201 and £14,850 respectively and the corresponding mean expected QALYs were 1.190 and 1.128, respectively. The mean ICER estimated as standard oxygen therapy compared to prehospital CPAP was £5685 per QALY which indicated that standard oxygen therapy strategy was likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY (67% probability). The scenario analysis, using effectiveness estimates from an updated meta-analysis, suggested that prehospital CPAP was more effective (mean incremental QALYs of 0.157), but also more expensive (mean incremental costs of £1522), than standard care. The mean ICER, estimated as prehospital CPAP compared to standard care, was £9712 per QALY. At the £20,000 per QALY prehospital CPAP was highly likely to be the most cost-effective strategy (94%). CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness of prehospital CPAP depends upon the estimate of effectiveness. When based on a small pragmatic feasibility trial, standard oxygen therapy is cost-effective. When based on meta-analysis of heterogeneous trials, CPAP is cost-effective. Value of information analyses support commissioning of a large pragmatic effectiveness trial, providing feasibility and plausibility conditions are met. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-021-00404-8. BioMed Central 2021-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7836588/ /pubmed/33494699 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12873-021-00404-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Thokala, Praveen
Fuller, Gordon W.
Goodacre, Steve
Keating, Samuel
Herbert, Esther
Perkins, Gavin D.
Rosser, Andy
Gunson, Imogen
Miller, Joshua
Ward, Matthew
Bradburn, Mike
Harris, Tim
Marsh, Maggie
Ren, Kate
Cooper, Cindy
Cost-effectiveness of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: decision analytic modelling using data from a feasibility trial
title Cost-effectiveness of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: decision analytic modelling using data from a feasibility trial
title_full Cost-effectiveness of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: decision analytic modelling using data from a feasibility trial
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: decision analytic modelling using data from a feasibility trial
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: decision analytic modelling using data from a feasibility trial
title_short Cost-effectiveness of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: decision analytic modelling using data from a feasibility trial
title_sort cost-effectiveness of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: decision analytic modelling using data from a feasibility trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7836588/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33494699
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12873-021-00404-8
work_keys_str_mv AT thokalapraveen costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT fullergordonw costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT goodacresteve costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT keatingsamuel costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT herbertesther costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT perkinsgavind costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT rosserandy costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT gunsonimogen costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT millerjoshua costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT wardmatthew costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT bradburnmike costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT harristim costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT marshmaggie costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT renkate costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial
AT coopercindy costeffectivenessofoutofhospitalcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureforacuterespiratoryfailuredecisionanalyticmodellingusingdatafromafeasibilitytrial