Cost-Utility Analysis of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy Compared With Usual Care for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in the Public Health System in Brazil

IF 1.4 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Daniela V. Pachito PhD , Alan L. Eckeli PhD , Luciano F. Drager PhD
{"title":"Cost-Utility Analysis of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy Compared With Usual Care for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in the Public Health System in Brazil","authors":"Daniela V. Pachito PhD ,&nbsp;Alan L. Eckeli PhD ,&nbsp;Luciano F. Drager PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.vhri.2023.10.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This study aimed to conduct a cost-utility analysis of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy compared with usual care as treatment of moderate to severe cases of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in Brazil, where decentralized policies of CPAP provision are in place.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Markov cohort model comparing CPAP therapy with usual care, that is, no specific treatment for OSA, for moderate to severe cases was used. The payer perspective from the Unified Health System, Brazil, was adopted. Effectiveness parameters and costs related to health states were informed by literature review. Resource use related to CPAP therapy was defined by specialists and costs informed by recent purchase and leasing contracts. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were generated for purchase and leasing contracts to reflect current practices. A conservative willingness-to-pay threshold was set at 1 gross domestic product per capita per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (Brazilian reais [BRL] 40 712/QALY). Uncertainties were explored in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the purchase modality was 8303 BRL/QALY and for leasing 45 192 BRL/QALY. Considering the adopted willingness-to-pay threshold, provision of CPAP by the purchase modality was considered cost-effective but not the leasing modality. The parameter related to the greatest uncertainty was the reduction in the risk of having a stroke attributable to CPAP. Probabilistic analysis confirmed the robustness of results.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>CPAP therapy is a cost-effective alternative compared with usual care for moderate to severe OSA for the purchase modality. These results should help underpinning the decision making related to a uniform policy of CPAP provision across the country.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23497,"journal":{"name":"Value in health regional issues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212109923001152/pdfft?md5=4f792c3eb3609947978b28df0890629f&pid=1-s2.0-S2212109923001152-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in health regional issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212109923001152","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to conduct a cost-utility analysis of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy compared with usual care as treatment of moderate to severe cases of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in Brazil, where decentralized policies of CPAP provision are in place.

Methods

Markov cohort model comparing CPAP therapy with usual care, that is, no specific treatment for OSA, for moderate to severe cases was used. The payer perspective from the Unified Health System, Brazil, was adopted. Effectiveness parameters and costs related to health states were informed by literature review. Resource use related to CPAP therapy was defined by specialists and costs informed by recent purchase and leasing contracts. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were generated for purchase and leasing contracts to reflect current practices. A conservative willingness-to-pay threshold was set at 1 gross domestic product per capita per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (Brazilian reais [BRL] 40 712/QALY). Uncertainties were explored in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the purchase modality was 8303 BRL/QALY and for leasing 45 192 BRL/QALY. Considering the adopted willingness-to-pay threshold, provision of CPAP by the purchase modality was considered cost-effective but not the leasing modality. The parameter related to the greatest uncertainty was the reduction in the risk of having a stroke attributable to CPAP. Probabilistic analysis confirmed the robustness of results.

Conclusions

CPAP therapy is a cost-effective alternative compared with usual care for moderate to severe OSA for the purchase modality. These results should help underpinning the decision making related to a uniform policy of CPAP provision across the country.

巴西公共卫生系统中阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停患者持续气道正压治疗与常规治疗的成本-效用分析
目的:本研究旨在对巴西中重度阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)患者进行持续气道正压(CPAP)治疗与常规治疗的成本-效用分析,在巴西,CPAP提供的分散政策已经到位。方法:采用马尔可夫队列模型,对中重度OSA患者采用CPAP治疗与常规治疗(即无特异性治疗)进行比较。采用了巴西统一卫生系统的付款人观点。通过文献综述了解与健康状态相关的有效性参数和成本。与CPAP治疗相关的资源使用由专家定义,费用由最近的购买和租赁合同通知。为购买和租赁合同生成了增量成本效益比率,以反映当前的做法。保守的支付意愿阈值设定为每质量调整生命年(QALY)人均国内生产总值1(巴西雷亚尔[BRL] 40712 /QALY)。在确定性和概率敏感性分析中探讨了不确定性。结果:购买模式的增量成本-效果比为8303 BRL/QALY,租赁模式的增量成本-效果比为45 192 BRL/QALY。考虑到采用的支付意愿阈值,以购买方式提供CPAP被认为是具有成本效益的,而不是租赁方式。与最大不确定性相关的参数是CPAP导致卒中风险的降低。概率分析证实了结果的稳健性。结论:与常规治疗相比,CPAP治疗是治疗中重度OSA的一种经济有效的选择。这些结果应该有助于支持与全国统一的CPAP提供政策相关的决策。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Value in health regional issues
Value in health regional issues Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
127
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信