Exploring Heterogeneity in Cost-Effectiveness Using Machine Learning Methods: A Case Study Using the FIRST-ABC Trial.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-07 DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000002010
Zaid Hattab, Edel Doherty, Zia Sadique, Padmanabhan Ramnarayan, Stephen O'Neill
{"title":"Exploring Heterogeneity in Cost-Effectiveness Using Machine Learning Methods: A Case Study Using the FIRST-ABC Trial.","authors":"Zaid Hattab, Edel Doherty, Zia Sadique, Padmanabhan Ramnarayan, Stephen O'Neill","doi":"10.1097/MLR.0000000000002010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to explore heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in children following extubation.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Using data from the FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC) trial, we explore heterogeneity at the individual and subgroup levels using a causal forest approach, alongside a seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) approach for comparison.</p><p><strong>Settings: </strong>FIRST-ABC is a noninferiority randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN60048867) including children in UK paediatric intensive care units, which compared HFNC with CPAP as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>In the step-down FIRST-ABC, 600 children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support were randomly assigned to HFNC and CPAP groups with 1:1 treatment allocation ratio. In this analysis, 118 patients were excluded because they did not consent to accessing their medical records, did not consent to follow-up questionnaire or did not receive respiratory support.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>The primary outcome of this study is the incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of HFNC compared with CPAP using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gain. INB is calculated based on total costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at 6 months. The findings suggest modest heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with CPAP at the subgroup level, while greater heterogeneity is detected at the individual level.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The estimated overall INB of HFNC is smaller than the INB for patients with better baseline status suggesting that HFNC can be more cost-effective among less severely ill patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000002010","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in children following extubation.

Design: Using data from the FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC) trial, we explore heterogeneity at the individual and subgroup levels using a causal forest approach, alongside a seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) approach for comparison.

Settings: FIRST-ABC is a noninferiority randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN60048867) including children in UK paediatric intensive care units, which compared HFNC with CPAP as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support.

Patients: In the step-down FIRST-ABC, 600 children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support were randomly assigned to HFNC and CPAP groups with 1:1 treatment allocation ratio. In this analysis, 118 patients were excluded because they did not consent to accessing their medical records, did not consent to follow-up questionnaire or did not receive respiratory support.

Measurements and main results: The primary outcome of this study is the incremental net monetary benefit (INB) of HFNC compared with CPAP using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gain. INB is calculated based on total costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at 6 months. The findings suggest modest heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness of HFNC compared with CPAP at the subgroup level, while greater heterogeneity is detected at the individual level.

Conclusions: The estimated overall INB of HFNC is smaller than the INB for patients with better baseline status suggesting that HFNC can be more cost-effective among less severely ill patients.

利用机器学习方法探索成本效益的异质性:使用 FIRST-ABC 试验的案例研究。
目的本研究旨在探讨儿童拔管后高流量鼻插管(HFNC)疗法与持续气道正压(CPAP)疗法成本效益的异质性:设计:利用儿童呼吸辅助系统 FIRST-ABC(FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children,FIRST-ABC)试验的数据,我们采用因果森林法探讨了个体和亚组水平的异质性,同时还采用了看似不相关的回归法(SUR)进行比较:FIRST-ABC 是一项非劣效性随机对照试验(ISRCTN60048867),试验对象包括英国儿科重症监护病房的儿童,该试验比较了 HFNC 和 CPAP 作为无创呼吸支持的一线模式:在降级 FIRST-ABC 中,600 名临床评估为需要无创呼吸支持的儿童以 1:1 的治疗分配比例被随机分配到 HFNC 组和 CPAP 组。在本次分析中,有 118 名患者因不同意查阅病历、不同意接受随访问卷或未接受呼吸支持而被排除在外:本研究的主要结果是高频NC与CPAP相比的增量净货币效益(INB),以每QALY收益20,000英镑为支付意愿阈值。INB 根据总成本和 6 个月的质量调整生命年 (QALY) 计算。研究结果表明,与 CPAP 相比,HFNC 的成本效益在亚组水平上存在适度的异质性,而在个体水平上则存在更大的异质性:HFNC的估计总体INB小于基线状况较好的患者的INB,这表明HFNC在病情较轻的患者中更具成本效益。
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
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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