阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停治疗的成本效益:成本效用研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2025-01-12 DOI:10.1080/14737167.2025.2451733
S Sajith Kumar, G Suchitra Lakshmi, Aamir Sohail, Kayala Venkata Jagadeesh, Bhavani Shankara Bagepally
{"title":"阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停治疗的成本效益:成本效用研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"S Sajith Kumar, G Suchitra Lakshmi, Aamir Sohail, Kayala Venkata Jagadeesh, Bhavani Shankara Bagepally","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2025.2451733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a sleep-related breathing disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of nocturnal breathing cessation resulting from upper airway collapse. Given the absence of a comprehensive review of the cost-effectiveness of OSA treatments, we undertook an extensive systematic review and meta-analysis to calculate the pooled incremental net benefit (INBp).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts cost-effectiveness analysis registry was conducted. INBp with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was estimated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed through the Cochrane-Q test and I<sup>2</sup> statistic. Study quality was evaluated using the modified ECOBIAS Checklist, and GRADE framework was applied to assess the certainty of outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four studies were included in the systematic review, fifteen qualifying for meta-analysis. CPAP was cost-effective compared to other treatments, with a INBp of $13,024 (95%CI $6,813 to $19,236), and substantial heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 97.48%). Compared to no treatment and oral appliances (OAs), CPAP showed cost-effective INB values of $30,834 ($21,325 to $40,343) and $2,708 ($645 to $4,771) respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CPAP is cost effective compared to all treatments collectively, as well as specifically to OAs and no treatment though with low certainty.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost effectiveness of obstructive sleep apnea therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost utility studies.\",\"authors\":\"S Sajith Kumar, G Suchitra Lakshmi, Aamir Sohail, Kayala Venkata Jagadeesh, Bhavani Shankara Bagepally\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14737167.2025.2451733\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a sleep-related breathing disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of nocturnal breathing cessation resulting from upper airway collapse. Given the absence of a comprehensive review of the cost-effectiveness of OSA treatments, we undertook an extensive systematic review and meta-analysis to calculate the pooled incremental net benefit (INBp).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts cost-effectiveness analysis registry was conducted. INBp with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was estimated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed through the Cochrane-Q test and I<sup>2</sup> statistic. Study quality was evaluated using the modified ECOBIAS Checklist, and GRADE framework was applied to assess the certainty of outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four studies were included in the systematic review, fifteen qualifying for meta-analysis. CPAP was cost-effective compared to other treatments, with a INBp of $13,024 (95%CI $6,813 to $19,236), and substantial heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 97.48%). Compared to no treatment and oral appliances (OAs), CPAP showed cost-effective INB values of $30,834 ($21,325 to $40,343) and $2,708 ($645 to $4,771) respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CPAP is cost effective compared to all treatments collectively, as well as specifically to OAs and no treatment though with low certainty.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2451733\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2451733","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)是一种睡眠相关的呼吸障碍,其特征是由上呼吸道塌陷引起的夜间呼吸停止反复发作。由于缺乏对阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停治疗成本效益的综合评价,我们进行了广泛的系统评价和荟萃分析,以计算累积增量净收益(INBp)。方法:系统检索PubMed、Embase、Scopus和Tufts成本-效果分析数据库。采用随机效应模型估计95%置信区间(CI)的INBp,并通过Cochrane-Q检验和I2统计量评估异质性。使用修改后的ECOBIAS检查表评估研究质量,并应用GRADE框架评估结果的确定性。结果:34项研究纳入系统评价,15项符合meta分析。与其他治疗相比,CPAP具有成本效益,INBp为13,024美元(95%CI为6,813美元至19,236美元),且具有很大的异质性(I2 = 97.48%)。与无治疗和口腔矫治(oa)相比,CPAP的成本效益INB值分别为30,834美元(21,325美元至40,343美元)和2,708美元(645美元至4,771美元)。结论:与所有治疗方法相比,CPAP具有成本效益,特别是与OAs和无治疗相比,尽管确定性较低。
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
Cost effectiveness of obstructive sleep apnea therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost utility studies.

Objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a sleep-related breathing disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of nocturnal breathing cessation resulting from upper airway collapse. Given the absence of a comprehensive review of the cost-effectiveness of OSA treatments, we undertook an extensive systematic review and meta-analysis to calculate the pooled incremental net benefit (INBp).

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts cost-effectiveness analysis registry was conducted. INBp with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was estimated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed through the Cochrane-Q test and I2 statistic. Study quality was evaluated using the modified ECOBIAS Checklist, and GRADE framework was applied to assess the certainty of outcomes.

Results: Thirty-four studies were included in the systematic review, fifteen qualifying for meta-analysis. CPAP was cost-effective compared to other treatments, with a INBp of $13,024 (95%CI $6,813 to $19,236), and substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 97.48%). Compared to no treatment and oral appliances (OAs), CPAP showed cost-effective INB values of $30,834 ($21,325 to $40,343) and $2,708 ($645 to $4,771) respectively.

Conclusion: CPAP is cost effective compared to all treatments collectively, as well as specifically to OAs and no treatment though with low certainty.

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
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
期刊最新文献
Preferences of nurses in the United Kingdom for attributes of pediatric hexavalent vaccines: a discrete-choice experiment. Patient-relevance of outcome measures in breast cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional comparative analysis of patient preferences and trials conducted between 2014 and 2024. Evaluation of biological drug consumption in Italy during 2022: a comparative analysis between two healthcare facilities. Cost comparison of F(ab')2 and Fab antivenoms for pit viper envenomation in the United States: a real-world analysis. Autologous stem-cell transplantation and maintenance therapy for transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients: cost-effectiveness analysis based on a network meta-analysis.
×
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