Athanasios Tsalatsanis, C. Dismuke-Greer, Ambuj Kumar, Jeanne M. Hoffman, K. Monden, U. Magalang, Daniel J. Schwartz, Aaron M. Martin, R. Nakase-Richardson
{"title":"Cost-Effectiveness of Sleep Apnea Diagnosis and Treatment in Hospitalized Persons With Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.","authors":"Athanasios Tsalatsanis, C. Dismuke-Greer, Ambuj Kumar, Jeanne M. Hoffman, K. Monden, U. Magalang, Daniel J. Schwartz, Aaron M. Martin, R. Nakase-Richardson","doi":"10.1097/HTR.0000000000000951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nTo assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches to diagnose and treat obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) during inpatient rehabilitation.\n\n\nSETTING\nData collected during the Comparison of Sleep Apnea Assessment Strategies to Maximize TBI Rehabilitation Participation and Outcome (C-SAS) clinical trial (NCT03033901) on an inpatient rehabilitation TBI cohort were used in this study.\n\n\nSTUDY DESIGN\nDecision tree analysis was used to determine the cost-effectiveness of approaches to diagnosing and treating sleep apnea. Costs were determined using 2021 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement codes. Effectiveness was defined in terms of the appropriateness of treatment. Costs averted were extracted from the literature. A sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty. Analyses were performed for all severity levels of OSA and a subgroup of those with moderate to severe OSA. Six inpatient approaches using various phases of screening, testing, and treatment that conform to usual care or guideline-endorsed interventions were evaluated: (1) usual care; (2) portable diagnostic testing followed by laboratory-quality testing; (3) screening with the snoring, tiredness, observed apnea, high BP, BMI, age, neck circumference, and male gender (STOP-Bang) questionnaire; (4) Multivariable Apnea Prediction Index (MAPI) followed by portable diagnostic testing and laboratory-quality testing; (5) laboratory-quality testing for all; and (6) treatment for all patients.\n\n\nMAIN MEASURES\nCost, Effectiveness, and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER).\n\n\nRESULTS\nPhased approaches utilizing screening and diagnostic tools were more effective in diagnosing and allocating treatment for OSA than all alternatives in patients with mild to severe and moderate to severe OSA. Usual care was more costly and less effective than all other approaches for mild to severe and moderate to severe OSA.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nDiagnosing and treating OSA in patients with TBI is a cost-effective strategy when compared with usual care.","PeriodicalId":519229,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation","volume":" 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000000951","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches to diagnose and treat obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) during inpatient rehabilitation.
SETTING
Data collected during the Comparison of Sleep Apnea Assessment Strategies to Maximize TBI Rehabilitation Participation and Outcome (C-SAS) clinical trial (NCT03033901) on an inpatient rehabilitation TBI cohort were used in this study.
STUDY DESIGN
Decision tree analysis was used to determine the cost-effectiveness of approaches to diagnosing and treating sleep apnea. Costs were determined using 2021 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement codes. Effectiveness was defined in terms of the appropriateness of treatment. Costs averted were extracted from the literature. A sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty. Analyses were performed for all severity levels of OSA and a subgroup of those with moderate to severe OSA. Six inpatient approaches using various phases of screening, testing, and treatment that conform to usual care or guideline-endorsed interventions were evaluated: (1) usual care; (2) portable diagnostic testing followed by laboratory-quality testing; (3) screening with the snoring, tiredness, observed apnea, high BP, BMI, age, neck circumference, and male gender (STOP-Bang) questionnaire; (4) Multivariable Apnea Prediction Index (MAPI) followed by portable diagnostic testing and laboratory-quality testing; (5) laboratory-quality testing for all; and (6) treatment for all patients.
MAIN MEASURES
Cost, Effectiveness, and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER).
RESULTS
Phased approaches utilizing screening and diagnostic tools were more effective in diagnosing and allocating treatment for OSA than all alternatives in patients with mild to severe and moderate to severe OSA. Usual care was more costly and less effective than all other approaches for mild to severe and moderate to severe OSA.
CONCLUSIONS
Diagnosing and treating OSA in patients with TBI is a cost-effective strategy when compared with usual care.
目的评估在住院康复期间诊断和治疗创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)的替代方法的成本效益。研究设计采用决策树分析法确定诊断和治疗睡眠呼吸暂停方法的成本效益。成本使用 2021 年美国医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心的报销代码确定。疗效根据治疗的适当性来定义。从文献中提取了避免的成本。为考虑不确定性因素,进行了敏感性分析。对所有严重程度的 OSA 和中重度 OSA 患者分组进行了分析。对六种住院方法进行了评估,这些方法采用了符合常规护理或指南认可的干预措施的不同阶段的筛查、检测和治疗:(1) 常规护理;(2) 便携式诊断检测,然后进行实验室质量检测;(3) 使用打鼾、疲倦、观察到的呼吸暂停、高血压、体重指数、年龄、颈围和男性性别(STOP-Bang)问卷进行筛查;(4) 多变量呼吸暂停预测指数(MAPI),然后进行便携式诊断检测和实验室质量检测;(5) 对所有患者进行实验室质量检测;以及 (6) 对所有患者进行治疗。结果对于轻度至重度和中度至重度 OSA 患者,利用筛查和诊断工具的分阶段方法在诊断和分配 OSA 治疗方面比所有替代方法更有效。对于轻度至重度和中度至重度 OSA 患者,常规护理比所有其他方法成本更高、效果更差。