Continuous positive airway pressure devices for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea–hypopnoea syndrome: a systematic review and economic analysis

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) (Impact Factor: 5.12). 02/2009; 13(4):iii-iv, xi-xiv, 1-119, 143-274. DOI: 10.3310/hta13040
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices for the treatment of obstructive apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS), compared with the best supportive care, placebo and dental devices.
The main search was of fifteen electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, up to November 2006.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CPAP with best supportive/usual care, placebo, and dental devices in adults with a diagnosis of OSAHS were included. The primary outcomes of interest were subjective daytime sleepiness assessed by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and objective sleepiness assessed by the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT) and the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT). A new economic model was developed to assess incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The cost-effectiveness of CPAP was compared with that of the use of dental devices and conservative management. The costs and QALYs were compared over a lifetime time horizon. Effectiveness was based on the RCT evidence on sleepiness symptoms (ESS), which was 'mapped' to utilities using individual patient data from a subset of studies. Utilities were expressed on the basis of generic HRQoL instruments [the EQ-5D (EuroQoL-5 Dimensions) in the base-case analysis]. The base-case analysis focused on a male aged 50. A series of subgroup and scenario analyses were also undertaken.
The searches yielded 6325 citations, from which 48 relevant clinical effectiveness studies were identified, 29 of these providing data on daytime sleepiness. The majority of the included RCTs did not report using an adequate method of allocation concealment or use an intention-to-treat analysis. Only the studies using a sham CPAP comparator were double blinded. There was a statistically significant benefit with CPAP compared with control (placebo and conservative treatment/usual care) on the ESS [mean difference (MD) -2.7 points, 95% CI -3.45 to -1.96]. However, there was statistical heterogeneity, which was reduced when trials were subgrouped by severity of disease. There was also a significant benefit with CPAP compared with usual care on the MWT. There was a non-statistically significant difference between CPAP and dental devices (six trials) in the impact on daytime sleepiness (ESS) among a population with moderate symptom severity at baseline (MD -0.9, 95% CI -2.1 to 0.4). A review of five studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of CPAP was undertaken. All existing cost-effectiveness studies had limitations; therefore a new economic model was developed, based on which it was found that, on average, CPAP was associated with higher costs and benefits than dental devices or conservative management. The incremental cost per QALY gained of CPAP was below 20,000 pounds in the base-case analysis and most alternative scenarios. There was a high probability of CPAP being more cost-effective than dental devices and conservative management for a cost-effectiveness threshold of 20,000 pounds per QALY gained.
CPAP is an effective and cost-effective treatment for OSAHS compared with conservative/usual care and placebo in populations with moderate to severe daytime sleepiness, and there may be benefits when the disease is mild. Dental devices may be a treatment option in moderate disease but some uncertainty remains. Further research would be potentially valuable, particularly investigation of the effectiveness of CPAP for populations with mild sleepiness and further trials comparing CPAP with dental devices.

Download full-text


Available from: Catriona Mcdaid, Feb 02, 2014
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present paper describes standardized procedures within clinical sleep medicine. As such, it is a continuation of the previously published European guidelines for the accreditation of sleep medicine centres and European guidelines for the certification of professionals in sleep medicine, aimed at creating standards of practice in European sleep medicine. It is also part of a broader action plan of the European Sleep Research Society, including the process of accreditation of sleep medicine centres and certification of sleep medicine experts, as well as publishing the Catalogue of Knowledge and Skills for sleep medicine experts (physicians, non-medical health care providers, nurses and technologists), which will be a basis for the development of relevant educational curricula. In the current paper, the standard operational procedures sleep medicine centres regarding the diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients evaluated at sleep medicine centres, accredited according to the European Guidelines, are based primarily on prevailing evidence-based medicine principles. In addition, parts of the standard operational procedures are based on a formalized consensus procedure applied by a group of Sleep Medicine Experts from the European National Sleep Societies. The final recommendations for standard operational procedures are categorized either as 'standard practice', 'procedure that could be useful', 'procedure that is not useful' or 'procedure with insufficient information available'. Standard operational procedures described here include both subjective and objective testing, as well as recommendations for follow-up visits and for ensuring patients' safety in sleep medicine. The overall goal of the actual standard operational procedures is to further develop excellence in the practice and quality assurance of sleep medicine in Europe.
    Journal of Sleep Research 12/2011; 21(4):357-68. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2869.2011.00987.x · 2.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) affects 2% to 7% of middle-age persons worldwide and represents a substantial health care burden. The gold standard for treating OSA in adults is continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. Compliance with this treatment is especially important in OSA patients experiencing concomitant acute and chronic disease or illness, and those undergoing procedures associated with sedation, analgesia and anesthesia. To describe the clinical characteristics and management of hospitalized OSA patients in Canada. Using the Canadian Institute for Health Information's hospital Discharge Abstract Database (fiscal year 2006⁄2007), a retrospective cohort study of all acute care patients discharged with a diagnosis that included OSA was performed. An examination of the discharge data of 2,400,245 acute care hospital abstracts identified 8823 cases of OSA. The mean age of OSA patients was 45.7 years and 66.5% were men. The most common comorbidities in the adult OSA population were obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In adult OSA patients, the reported surgical intervention rate using uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (9.6%) was much higher than interventional CPAP therapy (4.8%). Only a small percentage of hospitalized OSA patients were documented as having received CPAP therapy during their stay. Issues relating to the accuracy, specificity and completeness of the Canadian Institute for Health Information's hospital Discharge Abstract Database specific to OSA and its management were identified. Practices pertaining to the reporting, coding and management of hospitalized adult OSA patients warrant further investigation and research.
    Canadian respiratory journal: journal of the Canadian Thoracic Society 01/2010; 17(5):213-8. · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper introduces SCIE’s developing approach to economics and highlights one of the main issues that its work in this area has explored: incorporating the costs of informal, or ‘unpaid’, care in economic evaluations. Measuring and valuing unpaid care is fundamental to economic evaluation in social welfare if we wish to form a more complete picture of the true costs and benefits of an intervention and thus aid policy-makers in resource allocation decisions. However, there remains no consensus on the methodology for achieving this. In this brief article we introduce SCIE’s work, highlight the importance of measuring the economic impacts of unpaid care, and reflect on some of the different options available for their quantification and valuation.