探索急性病儿童高流量鼻插管 (HFNC) 治疗的成本效益异质性--利用机器学习方法从 FIRST-ABC 高级试验中获得的启示。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2024-09-28 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2024.08.008
Zaid Hattab, Silvia Moler-Zapata, Edel Doherty, Zia Sadique, Padmanabhan Ramnarayan, Stephen O'Neill
{"title":"探索急性病儿童高流量鼻插管 (HFNC) 治疗的成本效益异质性--利用机器学习方法从 FIRST-ABC 高级试验中获得的启示。","authors":"Zaid Hattab, Silvia Moler-Zapata, Edel Doherty, Zia Sadique, Padmanabhan Ramnarayan, Stephen O'Neill","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.08.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for acutely ill children requiring noninvasive respiratory support.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from the First-line Support for Assistance in Breathing in Children trial, we explore heterogeneity at the patient and subgroup levels using 2 causal forest approaches and a seemingly unrelated regression approach for comparison. First-line Support for Assistance in Breathing in Children is a noninferiority randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN60048867) involving 24 UK pediatric intensive care units. The Step-up trial focuses on acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years, requiring noninvasive respiratory support. A total of 600 children were randomly assigned to HFNC and CPAP groups in a 1:1 allocation ratio, with 94 patients excluded because of data unavailability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary outcome is the incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of HFNC compared with CPAP, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year gain. INB is derived from total costs and quality-adjusted life years at 6 months. Subgroup analysis showed that some subgroups, such as male children, those aged less than 12 months, and those without severe respiratory distress at randomization, had more favorable INB results. Patient-level analysis revealed heterogeneity in INB estimates, particularly driven by the cost component, with greater uncertainty for those with higher INBs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The estimated overall INB of HFNC is significantly larger for specific patient subgroups, suggesting that the cost-effectiveness of HFNC can be heterogeneous, which highlights the importance of considering patient characteristics in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of HFNC.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Heterogeneity in the Cost-Effectiveness of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in Acutely Ill Children-Insights From the Step-Up First-line Support for Assistance in Breathing in Children Trial Using a Machine Learning Method.\",\"authors\":\"Zaid Hattab, Silvia Moler-Zapata, Edel Doherty, Zia Sadique, Padmanabhan Ramnarayan, Stephen O'Neill\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2024.08.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for acutely ill children requiring noninvasive respiratory support.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from the First-line Support for Assistance in Breathing in Children trial, we explore heterogeneity at the patient and subgroup levels using 2 causal forest approaches and a seemingly unrelated regression approach for comparison. First-line Support for Assistance in Breathing in Children is a noninferiority randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN60048867) involving 24 UK pediatric intensive care units. The Step-up trial focuses on acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years, requiring noninvasive respiratory support. A total of 600 children were randomly assigned to HFNC and CPAP groups in a 1:1 allocation ratio, with 94 patients excluded because of data unavailability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary outcome is the incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of HFNC compared with CPAP, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year gain. INB is derived from total costs and quality-adjusted life years at 6 months. Subgroup analysis showed that some subgroups, such as male children, those aged less than 12 months, and those without severe respiratory distress at randomization, had more favorable INB results. Patient-level analysis revealed heterogeneity in INB estimates, particularly driven by the cost component, with greater uncertainty for those with higher INBs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The estimated overall INB of HFNC is significantly larger for specific patient subgroups, suggesting that the cost-effectiveness of HFNC can be heterogeneous, which highlights the importance of considering patient characteristics in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of HFNC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.08.008\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.08.008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的研究在需要无创呼吸支持的急性期患儿中,高流量鼻插管(HFNC)疗法与持续气道正压(CPAP)疗法成本效益的异质性:利用儿童呼吸辅助系统第一线支持(FIRST-ABC)试验的数据,我们使用两种因果森林方法和一种看似不相关的回归(SUR)方法在患者和亚组水平上探讨了异质性。FIRST-ABC 是一项非劣效性随机对照试验(ISRCTN60048867),涉及 24 个英国儿科重症监护病房。该 "升级 "试验主要针对需要无创呼吸支持的 0 至 15 岁急症儿童。共有 600 名儿童按 1:1 的分配比例被随机分配到 HFNC 组和 CPAP 组,其中 94 名患者因无法获得数据而被排除:主要结果是 HFNC 与 CPAP 相比的增量净货币收益 (INB),使用的支付意愿阈值为每 QALY 收益 20,000 英镑。INB 由总成本和 6 个月的质量调整生命年 (QALY) 得出。亚组分析表明,一些亚组,如男性儿童、年龄小于 12 个月的儿童和随机时无严重呼吸困难的儿童,INB 结果更有利。患者层面的分析显示,INB估计值存在异质性,尤其是在成本部分,INB较高者的不确定性更大:结论:对于特定的患者亚群,HFNC 的总体 INB 估计值要大得多,这表明 HFNC 的成本效益可能存在异质性,突出了在评估 HFNC 成本效益时考虑患者特征的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Exploring Heterogeneity in the Cost-Effectiveness of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy in Acutely Ill Children-Insights From the Step-Up First-line Support for Assistance in Breathing in Children Trial Using a Machine Learning Method.

Objectives: To investigate heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for acutely ill children requiring noninvasive respiratory support.

Methods: Using data from the First-line Support for Assistance in Breathing in Children trial, we explore heterogeneity at the patient and subgroup levels using 2 causal forest approaches and a seemingly unrelated regression approach for comparison. First-line Support for Assistance in Breathing in Children is a noninferiority randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN60048867) involving 24 UK pediatric intensive care units. The Step-up trial focuses on acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years, requiring noninvasive respiratory support. A total of 600 children were randomly assigned to HFNC and CPAP groups in a 1:1 allocation ratio, with 94 patients excluded because of data unavailability.

Results: The primary outcome is the incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of HFNC compared with CPAP, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year gain. INB is derived from total costs and quality-adjusted life years at 6 months. Subgroup analysis showed that some subgroups, such as male children, those aged less than 12 months, and those without severe respiratory distress at randomization, had more favorable INB results. Patient-level analysis revealed heterogeneity in INB estimates, particularly driven by the cost component, with greater uncertainty for those with higher INBs.

Conclusions: The estimated overall INB of HFNC is significantly larger for specific patient subgroups, suggesting that the cost-effectiveness of HFNC can be heterogeneous, which highlights the importance of considering patient characteristics in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of HFNC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
期刊最新文献
Value Attribution for Combination Treatments: Two Potential Solutions for an Insoluble Problem. Evaluating the health and economic impacts of return-to-work interventions: a modelling study. Exploring social preferences for health and wellbeing across the digital divide. A qualitative investigation based on tasks taken from an online discrete choice experiment. Quantifying low-value care in Germany: An observational study using statutory health insurance data from 2018 to 2021. Indirect Costs of Alzheimer's Disease: Unpaid Caregiver Burden and Patient Productivity Loss.
×
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