No abstract

Background Compliance with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy is essential in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), but adequate control is not always possible. This is clinically important because CPAP can reverse the morbidity and mortality associated with OSA. Telemedicine, with support provided via a web platform and video conferences, could represent a cost-effective alternative to standard care management. Aim To assess the telemedicine impact on treatment compliance, cost-effectiveness and improvement in quality of life (QoL) when compared with traditional face-to-face follow-up. Methods A randomised controlled trial was performed to compare a telemedicine-based CPAP follow-up strategy with standard face-to-face management. Consecutive OSA patients requiring CPAP treatment, with sufficient internet skills and who agreed to participate, were enrolled. They were followed-up at 1, 3 and 6 months and answered surveys about sleep, CPAP side effects and lifestyle. We compared CPAP compliance, costeffectiveness and QoL between the beginning and the end of the study. A Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis with non-informative priors was performed. Results We randomised 139 patients. At 6 months, we found similar levels of CPAP compliance, and improved daytime sleepiness, QoL, side effects and degree of satisfaction in both groups. Despite requiring more visits, the telemedicine group was more cost-effective: costs were lower and differences in effectiveness were not relevant. Conclusions A telemedicine-based strategy for the follow-up of CPAP treatment in patients with OSA was as effective as standard hospital-based care in terms of CPAP compliance and symptom improvement, with comparable side effects and satisfaction rates. The telemedicine-based strategy had lower total costs due to savings on transport and less lost productivity (indirect costs). Trial register number NCT01716676.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundObesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is treated with either non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or CPAP, but there are no long-term cost-effectiveness studies comparing the two treatment modalities.ObjectivesWe performed a large, multicentre, randomised, open-label controlled study to determine the comparative long-term cost and effectiveness of NIV versus CPAP in patients with OHS with severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) using hospitalisation days as the primary outcome measure.MethodsHospital resource utilisation and within trial costs were evaluated against the difference in effectiveness based on the primary outcome (hospitalisation days/year, transformed and non-transformed in monetary term). Costs and effectiveness were estimated from a log-normal distribution using a Bayesian approach. A secondary analysis by adherence subgroups was performed.ResultsIn total, 363 patients were selected, 215 were randomised and 202 were available for the analysis. The median (IQR) follow-up was 3.01 (2.91–3.14) years for NIV group and 3.00 (2.92–3.17) years for CPAP. The mean (SD) Bayesian estimated hospital days was 2.13 (0.73) for CPAP and 1.89 (0.78) for NIV. The mean (SD) Bayesian estimated cost per patient/year in the NIV arm, excluding hospitalisation costs, was €2075.98 (91.6), which was higher than the cost in the CPAP arm of €1219.06 (52.3); mean difference €857.6 (105.5). CPAP was more cost-effective than NIV (99.5% probability) because longer hospital stay in the CPAP arm was compensated for by its lower costs. Similar findings were observed in the high and low adherence subgroups.ConclusionCPAP is more cost-effective than NIV; therefore, CPAP should be the preferred treatment for patients with OHS with severe OSA.Trial registration numberNCT01405976