Health and Economic Impact of Different Long-Term Oxygen Therapeutic Strategies in Patients with Chronic Respiratory Failure: A French Nationwide Health Claims Database (SNDS) Study.

IF 2.3 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Pulmonary Therapy Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1007/s41030-024-00259-x
Stanislav Glezer, Gregoire Mercier, Jean-Marc Coursier, Nicoleta Petrica, Maria Pini, Abhijith Pg
{"title":"Health and Economic Impact of Different Long-Term Oxygen Therapeutic Strategies in Patients with Chronic Respiratory Failure: A French Nationwide Health Claims Database (SNDS) Study.","authors":"Stanislav Glezer, Gregoire Mercier, Jean-Marc Coursier, Nicoleta Petrica, Maria Pini, Abhijith Pg","doi":"10.1007/s41030-024-00259-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) is reported to improve survival in patients with chronic respiratory failure. We aimed to describe effectiveness, burden, and cost of illness of patients treated with portable oxygen concentrators (POC) compared to other LTOT options.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective comparative analysis included adult patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency and failure (CRF) upon a first delivery of LTOT between 2014 and 2019 and followed until December 2020, based on the French national healthcare database SNDS. Patients using POC, alone or in combination, were compared with patients using stationary concentrators alone (aSC), or compressed tanks (CTC) or liquid oxygen (LO2), matched on the basis of age, gender, comorbidities, and stationary concentrator use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 244,719 LTOT patients (mean age 75 ± 12, 48% women) included, 38% used aSC, 46% mobile oxygen in the form of LO2 (29%) and POC (18%), whereas 9% used CTC. The risk of death over the 72-month follow-up was estimated to be 13%, 15%, and 12% lower for patients in the POC group compared to aSC, CTC, and LO2, respectively. In the POC group yearly mean total costs per patient were 5% higher and 4% lower compared to aSC and CTC groups, respectively, and comparable in the LO2 group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of POC was €8895, €6288, and €13,152 per year of life gained compared to aSC, CTC, and LO2, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the POC group, we detected an association between higher mobility (POCs autonomy higher than 5 h), improved survival, lower costs, and ICER - €6 238, compared to lower mobility POCs users.</p>","PeriodicalId":20919,"journal":{"name":"Pulmonary Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11282007/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pulmonary Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-024-00259-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) is reported to improve survival in patients with chronic respiratory failure. We aimed to describe effectiveness, burden, and cost of illness of patients treated with portable oxygen concentrators (POC) compared to other LTOT options.

Methods: This retrospective comparative analysis included adult patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency and failure (CRF) upon a first delivery of LTOT between 2014 and 2019 and followed until December 2020, based on the French national healthcare database SNDS. Patients using POC, alone or in combination, were compared with patients using stationary concentrators alone (aSC), or compressed tanks (CTC) or liquid oxygen (LO2), matched on the basis of age, gender, comorbidities, and stationary concentrator use.

Results: Among 244,719 LTOT patients (mean age 75 ± 12, 48% women) included, 38% used aSC, 46% mobile oxygen in the form of LO2 (29%) and POC (18%), whereas 9% used CTC. The risk of death over the 72-month follow-up was estimated to be 13%, 15%, and 12% lower for patients in the POC group compared to aSC, CTC, and LO2, respectively. In the POC group yearly mean total costs per patient were 5% higher and 4% lower compared to aSC and CTC groups, respectively, and comparable in the LO2 group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of POC was €8895, €6288, and €13,152 per year of life gained compared to aSC, CTC, and LO2, respectively.

Conclusion: Within the POC group, we detected an association between higher mobility (POCs autonomy higher than 5 h), improved survival, lower costs, and ICER - €6 238, compared to lower mobility POCs users.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
慢性呼吸衰竭患者不同长期供氧治疗策略的健康和经济影响:法国全国健康索赔数据库 (SNDS) 研究。
简介据报道,长期氧疗(LTOT)可提高慢性呼吸衰竭患者的生存率。我们旨在描述使用便携式氧气浓缩器(POC)治疗患者的效果、负担和疾病成本,并与其他长期氧疗方案进行比较:这项回顾性比较分析以法国国家医疗保健数据库 SNDS 为基础,纳入了 2014 年至 2019 年间首次接受长期呼吸治疗的慢性呼吸功能不全和衰竭(CRF)成人患者,并随访至 2020 年 12 月。将单独或联合使用 POC 的患者与单独使用固定浓缩器(aSC)、压缩罐(CTC)或液氧(LO2)的患者进行比较,并根据年龄、性别、合并症和固定浓缩器的使用情况进行匹配:在纳入的 244,719 名 LTOT 患者(平均年龄为 75 ± 12 岁,48% 为女性)中,38% 使用 aSC,46% 使用 LO2(38%)和 POC(18%)形式的移动氧气,而 9% 使用 CTC。与 aSC、CTC 和 LO2 相比,POC 组患者在 72 个月随访期间的死亡风险估计分别降低了 13%、15% 和 12%。与 aSC 组和 CTC 组相比,POC 组每名患者每年的平均总费用分别高出 5% 和低 4%,与 LO2 组相当。与 aSC、CTC 和 LO2 相比,POC 每延长一年生命的增量成本效益比(ICER)分别为 8895 欧元、6288 欧元和 13152 欧元:在 POC 组中,我们发现,与行动能力较低的 POC 使用者相比,行动能力较高(POC 自主时间超过 5 小时)的 POC 使用者的生存率更高、成本更低、ICER 为 6 238 欧元。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pulmonary Therapy
Pulmonary Therapy Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
24
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Aims and Scope Pulmonary Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed (single-blind), and rapid publication journal. The scope of the journal is broad and will consider all scientifically sound research from pre-clinical, clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the use of pulmonary therapies, devices, and surgical techniques. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to: asthma; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; pulmonary hypertension; cystic fibrosis; lung cancer; respiratory tract disorders; allergic rhinitis and other respiratory allergies; influenza, pneumococcal infection, respiratory syncytial virus and other respiratory infections; and inhalers and other device therapies. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/series, trial protocols and short communications such as commentaries and editorials. Pulmonary Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. Rapid Publication The journal’s publication timelines aim for a rapid peer review of 2 weeks. If an article is accepted it will be published 3–4 weeks from acceptance. The rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model this allows for the rapid, efficient communication of the latest research and reviews, fostering the advancement of pulmonary therapies. Open Access All articles published by Pulmonary Therapy are open access. Personal Service The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning authors will always have an editorial contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE, GPP and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research. Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries Pulmonary Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’. For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/ Publication Fees Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €4500/ $5100/ £3650. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case by case basis. Peer Review Process Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria. At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials, and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviewer recommendations are conflicted, the editorial board will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed). Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor. Preprints We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting during the submission process or at any other point during consideration in one of our journals. Once the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. Please follow the link for further information on preprint sharing: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550 Copyright Pulmonary Therapy''s content is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Contact For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact christopher.vautrinot@springer.com.
期刊最新文献
Perspectives on Drug Product Design Among Patients with Lung Cancer in the United Kingdom. Efficacy of High Flow Nasal Cannula in the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19 with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Results of Single Centre Study in Vietnam. Expert Panel Consensus Recommendations for Allergic Rhinitis in Patients with Asthma in India. Survival Outcomes in US Medicare Patients with Non-Cystic Fibrosis Bronchiectasis by Rate of Baseline Exacerbations. Patient Profile-Based Management with Nintedanib in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1