Exploring Heterogeneity in Cost-Effectiveness Using Machine Learning Methods: A Case Study Using the FIRST-ABC Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in children following extubation. DESIGN: Using data from the FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC) trial, we explore heterogeneity at the individual and subgroup levels using a causal forest approach, alongside a seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) approach for comparison. SETTINGS: FIRST-ABC is a noninferiority randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN60048867) including children in UK paediatric intensive care units, which compared HFNC with CPAP as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support. PATIENTS: In the step-down FIRST-ABC, 600 children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support were randomly assigned to HFNC and CPAP groups with 1:1 treatment allocation ratio. In this analysis, 118 patients were excluded because they did not consent to accessing their medical records, did not consent to follow-up questionnaire or did not receive respiratory support. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome of this study is the incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of HFNC compared with CPAP using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gain. INB is calculated based on total costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at 6 months. The findings suggest modest heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with CPAP at the subgroup level, while greater heterogeneity is detected at the individual level. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated overall INB of HFNC is smaller than the INB for patients with better baseline status suggesting that HFNC can be more cost-effective among less severely ill patients.

Association Between Sleep Apnea Treatment and Health Care Resource Use in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) contributes to the generation, recurrence, and perpetuation of atrial fibrillation, and it is associated with worse outcomes. Little is known about the economic impact of OSA therapy in atrial fibrillation. This retrospective cohort study assessed the impact of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy adherence on health care resource use and costs in patients with OSA and atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Insurance claims data for ≥1 year before sleep testing and 2 years after device setup were linked with objective PAP therapy use data. PAP adherence was defined from an extension of the US Medicare 90-day definition. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to create covariate-balanced PAP adherence groups to mitigate confounding. Of 5867 patients (32% women; mean age, 62.7 years), 41% were adherent, 38% were intermediate, and 21% were nonadherent. Mean±SD number of all-cause emergency department visits (0.61±1.21 versus 0.77±1.55 [P=0.023] versus 0.95±1.90 [P<0.001]), all-cause hospitalizations (0.19±0.69 versus 0.24±0.72 [P=0.002] versus 0.34±1.16 [P<0.001]), and cardiac-related hospitalizations (0.06±0.26 versus 0.09±0.41 [P=0.023] versus 0.10±0.44 [P=0.004]) were significantly lower in adherent versus intermediate and nonadherent patients, as were all-cause inpatient costs ($2200±$8054 versus $3274±$12 065 [P=0.002] versus $4483±$16 499 [P<0.001]). All-cause emergency department costs were significantly lower in adherent and intermediate versus nonadherent patients ($499±$1229 and $563±$1292 versus $691±$1652 [P<0.001 and P=0.002], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest clinical and economic benefits of PAP therapy in patients with concomitant OSA and atrial fibrillation. This supports the value of diagnosing and managing OSA and highlights the need for strategies to enhance PAP adherence in this population.

Performance of Claims-Based Algorithms for Adherence to Positive Airway Pressure Therapy in Commercially Insured Patients With OSA.

BACKGROUND: Positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy is first-line therapy for OSA, but consistent use is required for it to be effective. Previous studies have used Medicare fee-for-service claims data (eg, device, equipment charges) as a proxy for PAP adherence to assess its effects. However, this approach has not been validated in a US commercially insured population, where coverage rules are not standardized. RESEARCH QUESTION: In a commercially insured population in the United States, how well do claims-based algorithms for defining PAP adherence correspond with objective PAP device usage? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Deidentified administrative claims data of commercially insured patients (aged 18-64 years) with OSA were linked to objective PAP therapy usage data from cloud-connected devices. Adherence was defined based on device use (using an extension of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 90-day compliance criteria) and from claims-based algorithms to compare usage metrics and identify potential misclassifications. RESULTS: The final sample included 213,341 patients. Based on device usage, 48% were adherent in the first year. Based on claims, between 10% and 84% of patients were identified as adherent (accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity ranges: 53%-68%, 12%-95%, and 26%-92%, respectively). Relative to patients who were claims-adherent, patients who were device-adherent had consistently higher usage across all metrics (mean, 339.9 vs 260.0-290.0 days of use; 6.6 vs 5.1-5.6 d/wk; 6.4 vs 4.6-5.2 h/d). Consistent PAP users were frequently identified by claims-based algorithms as nonadherent, whereas many inconsistent users were classified by claims-based algorithms as adherent. INTERPRETATION: In aggregate US commercial data with nonstandardized PAP coverage rules, concordance between existing claims-based definitions and objective PAP use was low. Caution is warranted when applying existing claims-based algorithms to commercial populations.

Economic evaluation of CPAP therapy for obstructive sleep apnea: a scoping review and evidence map.

PURPOSE: To synthesize findings of economic evaluations investigating cost-effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and of strategies of organization of care related to CPAP therapy. METHODS: Scoping review with searches conducted in MEDLINE, CRD, LILACS, and Embase in August 2020. Eligible studies were economic evaluations comparing CPAP to other alternative or assessing strategies of care for CPAP therapy. Results were presented narratively, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were presented in evidence maps. RESULTS: Of 34 studies, 3 concluded that CPAP is less costly and more effective when compared to usual care. Most studies indicated that CPAP is associated with better health outcomes, but at higher prices. ICER ranged from USD 316 to 98,793 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained (median 16,499; IQR 8267 to 33,119). One study concluded that CPAP is more costly and less effective, when treatment is applied to all patients, regardless of disease severity. Variability of ICER was mainly due to definition of population and applied time horizons. When CPAP was compared to mandibular advancement device, ICER ranged from USD 21,153 to 361,028 (median 89,671; IQR 26,829 to 295,983), which represents the investment in CPAP therapy required to obtain one extra QALY. Three studies assessed the effects of organizing CPAP therapy in primary care, which was cost-effective or cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, CPAP is cost-effective after the second year of treatment, when indicated for moderate-to-severe OSA. CPAP therapy may be even more cost-effective by using different strategies of organization of care. These findings may inform decision making related to CPAP reimbursement in health systems. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nasal High Flow Versus CPAP for Newborn Infants in Special-Care Nurseries.

BACKGROUND: Treating respiratory distress in newborns is expensive. We compared the cost-effectiveness of 2 common noninvasive therapies, nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and nasal high-flow (nHF), for newborn infants cared for in nontertiary special care nurseries. METHODS: The economic evaluation was planned alongside a randomized control trial conducted in 9 Australian special care nurseries. Costs were considered from a hospital perspective until infants were 12 months of age. A total of 754 infants with respiratory distress, born ≥31 weeks' gestation and with birth weight ≥1200 g, <24 hours old, requiring noninvasive respiratory support and/or supplemental oxygen for >1 hour were recruited during 2015-2017. Inpatient costing records were obtained for 753 infants, of whom 676 were included in the per-protocol analysis. Two scenarios were considered: (1) CPAP versus nHF, with infants in the nHF group having "rescue" CPAP backup available (trial scenario); and (2) CPAP versus nHF, as sole primary support (hypothetical scenario). Effectiveness outcomes were rate of endotracheal intubation and transfer to a tertiary-level NICU. RESULTS: As sole primary support, CPAP is more effective and on average cheaper, and thus is superior. However, nHF with back-up CPAP produced equivalent cost and effectiveness results, and there is no reason to make a decision between the 2 treatments on the basis of the cost or effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Nontertiary special care nurseries choosing to use only 1 of the modes should choose CPAP. In units with both modes available, using nHF as first-line therapy may be acceptable if there is back-up CPAP.

Treatment burden experienced by patients with obstructive sleep apnoea using continuous positive airway pressure therapy.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the treatment burden experienced by patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) who use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. PARTICIPANTS: 18 patients (33.3% males, mean age 59.7±11.8 years) with OSA who use CPAP therapy were interviewed. METHODS: Patients treated with CPAP for OSA at a tertiary hospital outpatient clinic in Sydney, Australia, were invited to participate in an interview in person or via phone. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore the treatment burden associated with using CPAP. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using NVivo 12 qualitative analysis software. RESULTS: Four categories of OSA-specific treatment burden were identified: healthcare tasks, consequences of healthcare tasks, exacerbating and alleviating factors of treatment burden. Participants reported a significant burden associated with using CPAP, independently of how frequently they used their device. Common sources of their treatment burden included attending healthcare appointments, the financial cost of treatment, lifestyle changes, treatment-related side effects and general discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that there is a significant treatment burden associated with the use of CPAP, and that treatment non-adherence is not the only consequence of treatment burden. Other consequences include relationship burden, stigma and financial burden. It is important for physicians to identify other negative impacts of treatment burden in order to optimise the patient experience.

Characterizing Decisional Conflict in Patients Presenting to Sleep Surgery Clinic and an Exploration of Resource Limitations.

OBJECTIVES: Numerous therapies exist for adult obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), creating potential for patient decisional conflict (DC) that impacts treatment adherence and post-treatment regret. We evaluated the prevalence of elevated DC in OSA patients presenting for positive airway pressure (PAP) alternative therapies and identified gaps in available resources about OSA therapies. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed based on questionnaires completed by adult OSA patients presenting to an academic sleep surgery clinic from March to October 2020. Surveys examined sleep symptoms, sleep apnea treatment history, goals of therapy, and the SURE checklist, a validated 4-item DC screening scale. Additional qualitative data about OSA decision tool needs were queried with structured interviews in a smaller subset of patients. RESULTS: Among 100 respondents, 60 were open to multiple treatment options, whereas 22 were not interested in surgical treatment. Eighty-one respondents (81%) had elevated DC (SURE score < 4). High DC was not associated with CPAP history, OSA severity, or daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale score ≥ 10). Elevated DC was related to uncertainty regarding optimal treatment choice in 54% of respondents (n = 54), and lack of knowledge regarding risks and benefits of each treatment option in 71% (n = 71). Common themes identified in 9 interviewed patients suggested helpful resources should ideally compare treatment modalities and educate on surgery details, efficacy, and recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of OSA patients presenting to sleep surgery clinics have elevated decisional conflict influenced by limited knowledge about options and the risks and benefits of each therapy. There is a need for decision tools that can reduce decisional conflict and promote equitable knowledge about PAP alternative OSA treatments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:2384-2390, 2021.

Experiences with implementation of continuous positive airway pressure for neonates and infants in low-resource settings: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the gold standard of care in providing non-invasive positive pressure support to neonates in respiratory distress in high-resource settings. While safety has been demonstrated in low-resource settings, there is a lack of knowledge on the barriers and facilitators to proper implementation. OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe the barriers, facilitators, and priorities for future implementation of CPAP for neonates and infants in low-resource settings. METHODS: A systematic search (database inception to March 6, 2020) was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, Global Health, and the WHO Global Index Medicus using PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Original research articles pertaining to implementation of CPAP devices in low-resource settings, provider or parent perspectives and experiences with CPAP, cost-benefit analyses, and cost-effectiveness studies were included. Inductive content analysis was conducted. FINDINGS: 1385 article were screened and 54 studies across 19 countries met inclusion criteria. Six major themes emerged: device attributes, patient experiences, parent experiences, provider experiences, barriers, and facilitators. Nasal trauma was the most commonly reported complication. Barriers included unreliable electricity and lack of bioengineering support. Facilitators included training, mentorship and empowerment of healthcare providers. Device design, supply chain infrastructure, and training models were imperative to the adoption and sustainability of CPAP. CONCLUSION: Sustainable implementation of CPAP in low resource settings requires easy-to-use devices, ready access to consumables, and holistic, user-driven training. Further research is necessary on standardizing metrics, interventions that support optimal provider performance, and conditions needed for successful long-term health system integration.

An alternative model in the provision of CPAP in sleep apnea: a comparative cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: To conduct a pilot study on an alternative model for the provision of respiratory therapies in sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (SAHS) by internalizing the service with the purchase, monitoring and control of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) equipment by the hospital. METHODS: An observational, prospective pilot study of comparative cost analysis by internalizing the service to include all patients up to a budget limit of 5000 euros. The cost of internalizing the service included the acquisition of CPAP equipment and all the necessary accessories in addition to the nursing days necessary to track the patients. Patient satisfaction was assessed by a survey of the hospital service. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients with 23,046 patient-days of follow-up were included. The cost of the internalized system was 6825.11 €. The cost of the outsourced system over the same period would have been 22,781.18 €; thus, the direct saving was 15,956.07 €. The cost per device per day of the internalized system was 0.30 € versus the 0.99 € that the outsourced system would have cost during the study period. In the satisfaction survey, 12 (70.6%) patients indicated that they preferred the service of the hospital over that of the external company. No patient preferred the outsourced system. CONCLUSIONS: The internalization of CPAP service represents significant cost savings from a hospital perspective and an improvement in patients' perceptions of the quality of service.

The role of CPAP as a potential bridge to invasive ventilation and as a ceiling-of-care for patients hospitalized with Covid-19-An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation may be used as a potential bridge to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), or as a ceiling-of-care for persistent hypoxaemia despite standard oxygen therapy, according to UK guidelines. We examined the association of mode of respiratory support and ceiling-of-care on mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of routinely collected de-identified data of adults with nasal/throat SARs-CoV-2 swab-positive results, at the Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust between 10th March-19th April 2020 (outcomes determined on 22nd May). FINDINGS: Of 347 patients with SARs-CoV-2 swab-positive results, 294 (84.7%) patients admitted for Covid-19 were included in the study. Sixty-nine patients were trialled on CPAP, mostly delivered by face mask, either as an early ceiling of care instituted within 24 hours of admission (N = 19), or as a potential bridge to IMV (N = 44). Patients receiving a ceiling of care more than 24 hours after admission (N = 6) were excluded from the analysis. Two hundred and fifteen patients (73.1%) maximally received air/standard oxygen therapy, and 45 (15.3%) patients maximally received CPAP. Thirty-four patients (11.6%) required IMV, of which 24 had received prior CPAP. There were 138 patients with an early ceiling-of-care plan (pre-admission/within 24h). Overall, 103(35.0%) patients died and 191(65.0%) were alive at study end. Among all patients trialled on CPAP either as a potential bridge to IMV (N = 44) or as a ceiling-of-care (N = 19) mortality was 25% and 84%, respectively. Overall, there was strong evidence for higher mortality among patients who required CPAP or IMV, compared to those who required only air/oxygen (aOR 5.24 95%CI: 1.38, 19.81 and aOR 46.47 95%CI: 7.52, 287.08, respectively; p<0.001), and among patients with early ceiling-of-care compared to those without a ceiling (aOR 41.81 95%CI: 8.28, 211.17; p<0.001). Among patients without a ceiling of care (N = 137), 10 patients required prompt intubation following failed oxygen therapy, but 44 patients received CPAP. CPAP failure, defined as death (N = 1) or intubation (N = 24), occurred in 57% (N = 25) of patients. But in total, 75% (N = 33) of those started on CPAP with no ceiling of care recovered to discharge-19 without the need for IMV, and 14 following IMV. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that among patients with no ceiling-of-care, an initial trial of CPAP as a potential bridge to IMV offers a favourable therapeutic alternative to early intubation. In contrast, among patients with a ceiling-of care, CPAP seems to offer little additional survival benefit beyond oxygen therapy alone. Information on ceilings of respiratory support is vital to interpreting mortality from Covid-19. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: Sample size relatively small.Study sample representative of hospitalised Covid-19 patients in UK.Previously unreported data on role of ceilings-of-care in hospitalised Covid-19 patients.Novel data on use of CPAP separated by indication.

Protocol of a multicentre, prospective cohort study that evaluates cost-effectiveness of two perioperative care strategies for potential obstructive sleep apnoea in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the high prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery, OSA is undiagnosed in the majority of patients and thus untreated. While untreated OSA is associated with an increased risk of preoperative and postoperative complications, no evidence-based guidelines on perioperative care for these patients are available. The aim of the POPCORN study (Post-Operative Pulse oximetry without OSA sCreening vs perioperative continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment following OSA scReeNing by polygraphy (PG)) is to evaluate which perioperative strategy is the most cost-effective for obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery without a history of OSA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this multicentre observational cohort study, data from 1380 patients who will undergo bariatric surgery will be collected. Patients will receive either postoperative care with pulse oximetry monitoring and supplemental oxygen during the first postoperative night, or care that includes preoperative PG and CPAP treatment in case of moderate or severe OSA. Local protocols for perioperative care in each participating hospital will determine into which cohort a patient is placed. The primary outcome is cost-effectiveness, which will be calculated by comparing all healthcare costs with the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs, calculated using EQ-5D questionnaires). Secondary outcomes are mortality, complications within 30 days after surgery, readmissions, reoperations, length of stay, weight loss, generic quality of life (QOL), OSA-specific QOL, OSA symptoms and CPAP adherence. Patients will receive questionnaires before surgery and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery to report QALYs and other patient-reported outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval from the Medical Research Ethics Committees United was granted in accordance with the Dutch law for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) (reference number W17.050). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at (inter)national conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6991.

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) face-mask ventilation is an easy and cheap option to manage a massive influx of patients presenting acute respiratory failure during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, intensive care units (ICU) can be overwhelmed by the number of hypoxemic patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This single centre retrospective observational cohort study took place in a French hospital where the number of patients exceeded the ICU capacity despite an increase from 18 to 32 beds. Because of this, 59 (37%) of the 159 patients requiring ICU care were referred to other hospitals. From 27th March to 23rd April, consecutive patients who had respiratory failure or were unable to maintain an SpO2 > 90%, despite receiving 10-15 l/min of oxygen with a non-rebreather mask, were treated by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) unless the ICU physician judged that immediate intubation was indicated. We describe the characteristics, clinical course, and outcomes of these patients. The main outcome under study was CPAP discontinuation. RESULTS: CPAP was initiated in 49 patients and performed out of ICU in 41 (84%). Median age was 65 years (IQR = 54-71) and 36 (73%) were men. Median respiratory rate before CPAP was 36 (30-40) and median SpO2 was 92% (90-95) under 10 to 15 L/min oxygen flow. Median duration of CPAP was 3 days (IQR = 1-5). Reasons for discontinuation of CPAP were: intubation in 25 (51%), improvement in 16 (33%), poor tolerance in 6 (12%) and death in 2 (4%) patients. A decision not to intubate had been taken for 8 patients, including the 2 who died while on CPAP. Two patients underwent less than one hour CPAP for poor tolerance. In the end, 15 (38%) out of 39 evaluable patients recovered with only CPAP whereas 24 (62%) were intubated. CONCLUSIONS: CPAP is feasible in a non-ICU environment in the context of massive influx of patients. In our cohort up to 1/3 of the patients presenting with acute respiratory failure recovered without intubation.

Quick Thinking Turns out Low-Cost Ventilators.

As the number of coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) cases in the United States began mounting in the early weeks of March, health care workers raised the alarm about a looming shortage of ventilators to treat patients. On March 30, 2020, Ford Motor Company announced plans to produce 50,000 ventilators in 100 days [1], and General Motors followed suit on April 8, stating that it would deliver out 6,000 ventilators by the end of May and another 24,000 by August [2].

Respiratory Support in COVID-19 Patients, with a Focus on Resource-Limited Settings.

The ongoing novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is threatening the global human population, including in countries with resource-limited health facilities. Severe bilateral pneumonia is the main feature of severe COVID-19, and adequate ventilatory support is crucial for patient survival. Although our knowledge of the disease is still rapidly increasing, this review summarizes current guidance on the best provision of ventilatory support, with a focus on resource-limited settings. Key messages include that supplemental oxygen is a first essential step for the treatment of severe COVID-19 patients with hypoxemia and should be a primary focus in resource-limited settings where capacity for invasive ventilation is limited. Oxygen delivery can be increased by using a non-rebreathing mask and prone positioning. The presence of only hypoxemia should in general not trigger intubation because hypoxemia is often remarkably well tolerated. Patients with fatigue and at risk for exhaustion, because of respiratory distress, will require invasive ventilation. In these patients, lung protective ventilation is essential. Severe pneumonia in COVID-19 differs in some important aspects from other causes of severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome, and limiting the positive end-expiratory pressure level on the ventilator may be important. This ventilation strategy might reduce the currently very high case fatality rate of more than 50% in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients.

Cost-effectiveness of positive airway pressure modalities in obesity hypoventilation syndrome with severe obstructive sleep apnoea.

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.

Association between adherence to continuous positive airway pressure treatment and cost among medicare enrollees.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost associated with sleep apnea and effects of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment on costs among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Retrospective cohort design using 5% Medicare claims between 2006 and 2010. Medicare beneficiaries with and without sleep apnea diagnosis between 2007 and 2008 were identified and followed retrospectively for 2 years pre-index-date and 2 years post-index-date. We defined CPAP fill as at least one durable medical equipment claim for CPAP in 6-month period. At least three CPAP fills was defined as "full adherence," and one or two CPAP fills was "partial adherence." We used interrupted time series and generalized linear log-link models to study the association between sleep apnea, CPAP treatment, and costs. To minimize bias, we used propensity score and instrumental variables approach. RESULTS: Sleep apnea was associated with higher costs (odds ratio [OR] = 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.58, 1.63) compared to those without sleep apnea. Almost half of those with sleep apnea received CPAP treatment. Interrupted time series analysis indicated post level increase in mean monthly cost for full CPAP adherence group, partial CPAP adherence group and no-CPAP group. However, the increase was smallest for the full CPAP adherence group. Full CPAP adherence was associated with lower change in cost (OR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.88, 0.97) compared to the no-CPAP group. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with sleep apnea experience increased cost. Full adherence to CPAP treatment for sleep apnea was associated with lower increase in cost. These findings emphasize the need to effectively identify and treat sleep apnea in Medicare patients.

Clinical- and Cost-Effectiveness of a Mandibular Advancement Device Versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in Moderate Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Limited evidence exists on the cost-effectiveness of mandibular advancement device (MAD) compared to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy in moderate obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Therefore, this study compares the clinical and cost-effectiveness of MAD therapy with CPAP therapy in moderate OSA. METHODS: In a multicentre randomized controlled trial, patients with an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of 15 to 30 events/h were randomized to either MAD or CPAP. Incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios (ICER/ICUR, in terms of AHI reduction and quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs, based on the EuroQol Five-Dimension Quality of Life questionnaire]) were calculated after 12 months, all from a societal perspective. RESULTS: In the 85 randomized patients (n = 42 CPAP, n = 43 MAD), AHI reduction was significantly greater with CPAP (median reduction AHI 18.3 [14.8-22.6] events/h) than with MAD therapy (median reduction AHI 13.5 [8.5-18.4] events/h) after 12 months. Societal costs after 12 months were higher for MAD than for CPAP (mean difference €2.156). MAD was less cost-effective than CPAP after 12 months (ICER -€305 [-€3.003 to €1.572] per AHI point improvement). However, in terms of QALY, MAD performed better than CPAP after 12 months (€33.701 [-€191.106 to €562.271] per QALY gained). CONCLUSIONS: CPAP was more clinically effective (in terms of AHI reduction) and cost-effective than MAD. However, costs per QALY was better with MAD as compared to CPAP. Therefore, CPAP is the first-choice treatment option in moderate OSA and MAD may be a good alternative. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT01588275.

Association of Positive Airway Pressure Use With Acute Care Utilization and Costs.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The current value-based medical climate has led to scrutiny of all medical costs. Given the relationship between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and many significant comorbid medical conditions, treating patients with OSA via positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy might reduce health care expenditures. Our goal was to determine the relationship between PAP use and acute care utilization and costs. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who initiated PAP therapy after a diagnosis of moderate-severe OSA at a large integrated health system during 2014-2016. RESULTS: The study consisted of 1,098 patients, of which 60% were on PAP > 4 h/night for ≥ 70% of the nights. The average h/night were 5.3 (standard deviation 2.4). Increasing PAP usage was associated with reduced inpatient (rate ratio [RR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-0.98) and overall acute care visits (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.99). The linear relationships were supported by the threshold effects identified in the categorical adherence measures. No linear association was identified with emergency department visits and inpatient stays. However, lower number of emergency department visits (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98) and inpatient stays (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.91) were observed among adherent (> 4 h/night for ≥ 70% of the nights) patients. CONCLUSIONS: PAP usage was linearly associated with reduced number of inpatient and overall acute care visits, and lower likelihood of having positive costs from these visits. PAP usage was also associated with less emergency department visits and inpatient stays when comparing adherent patients to less adherent patients. CITATION: Kirsch DB, Yang H, Maslow AL, Stolzenbach M, McCall A. Association of positive airway pressure use with acute care utilization and costs. J Clin Sleep Med. 2019;15(9):1243-1250.

Reducing preterm mortality in eastern Uganda: the impact of introducing low-cost bubble CPAP on neonates <1500 g.

BACKGROUND: Complications of prematurity are the leading cause of deaths in children under the age of five. The predominant reason for these preterm deaths is respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). In low-income countries (LICs) there are limited treatment options for RDS. Due to their simplicity and affordability, low-cost bubble continuous positive airway pressure (bCPAP) devices have been introduced in neonatal units in LICs to treat RDS. This study is the first observational study from a LIC to compare outcomes of very-low-birth-weight (VLBW) neonates in pre- and post-CPAP periods. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of VLBW neonates (weight < 1500 g) in Mbale Regional Referral Hospital Neonatal Unit (MRRH-NNU), a government hospital in eastern Uganda. It aimed to measure the outcome of VLBW neonates in two distinct study periods: A 14-month period beginning at the opening of MRRH-NNU and covering the period until bCPAP was introduced (pre-bCPAP) and an 18-month period following the introduction of bCPAP (post-bCPAP). After the introduction of bCPAP, it was applied to preterm neonates with RDS when clinically indicated and if a device was available. Clinical features and outcomes of all neonates < 1500 g were compared before and after the introduction of bCPAP. RESULTS: The admission records of 377 VLBW neonates < 1500 g were obtained. One hundred fifty-eight were admitted in the pre-bCPAP period and 219 in the post-bCPAP period. The mortality rate in the pre- bCPAP period was 39.2% (62/158) compared with 26.5% (58/219, P = 0.012) in the post-bCPAP period. Overall, there was a 44% reduction in mortality (OR 0.56, 95%CI 0.36-0.86, P = 0.01). There were no differences in birthweight, sex, presence of signs of respiratory distress or apnoea between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Specialized and resource-appropriate neonatal care, that appropriately addresses the challenges of healthcare provision in LICs, has the potential to reduce neonatal deaths. The use of a low-cost bCPAP to treat RDS in VLBW neonates resulted in a significant improvement in their survival in a neonatal unit in eastern Uganda. Since RDS is one of the leading causes of neonatal mortality, it is possible that this relatively simple and affordable intervention could have a huge impact on global neonatal mortality.