RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Hypoglossal nerve stimulation (HNS) with Inspire is a novel treatment indicated for moderate or severe obstructive sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS), intolerant to or unable to be treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of treating moderate or severe OSAHS, in patients intolerant to CPAP, with HNS, compared with standard care, from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A cohort state transition model was developed to compare HNS with Inspire with no treatment in UK adult patients with moderate or severe OSAHS who have previously tried and have not responded to CPAP therapy. Published literature was applied in the model to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; 2019 Great British pounds per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained), from an NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective, over a cohort's lifetime. RESULTS: The model base-case predicts that patients undergoing HNS will incur lifetime costs of £65,026 compared with £36,727 among untreated patients. The HNS cohort would gain 12.72 QALYs compared with 11.15 QALYs in the no-treatment arm. The ICER of treating severe OSAHS with HNS is therefore estimated to be £17,989 per QALYs gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that at a threshold of £30,000/QALY, HNS has a 69% probability of being cost effective. Limitations of the model include uncertainty around the utility data that were not sourced directly from HNS clinical trials. There is further uncertainty in the relationship between change in the Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) and reduction in ischaemic heart disease and stroke because of difficulty capturing the reduction in risk over a long time horizon in studies. CONCLUSIONS: Over a patient's lifetime, HNS with Inspire is expected to be cost effective when compared with no treatment in patients with severe OSAHS who have tried and have not responded to CPAP, from an NHS perspective.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to identify the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MI SIJF) surgery with titanium triangular implants for patients with sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain who have failed conservative management, compared to non-surgical management (NSM) from a National Health Service (NHS) England perspective. METHODS: Over a time horizon of 5 years, a cohort state transition model compared the costs and outcomes of treating patients with MI SIJF to those of traditional NSM treatment pathways. The NSM arm included two treatments: grouped physical therapy and corticosteroid injections (PTSI) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Three different strategies were considered: (1) a stepped pathway, (2) patients split between PTSI and RFA, and (3) RFA only. The outcome measure was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), reported in 2018 British pounds per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: Patients undergoing MI SIJF accrued total procedure-related and pain-management costs of £8358, while NSM treatment strategy 1 had total costs of £6880. The MI SIJF cohort had 2.98 QALYs compared to strategy 1 with 2.30 QALYs. This resulted in an ICER for MI SIJF versus strategy 1 of £2164/QALY gained. Strategy 2 of the NSM arm had lower costs than strategy 1 (£6564) and 2.26 QALYs, and this resulted in an ICER of £2468/QALY gained for MI SIJF. Strategy 3 of the NSM arm had lower costs than strategy 1 (£6580), and this resulted in 2.28 QALYs and an ICER of £2518/QALY gained for MI SIJF. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that at a threshold of £20,000/QALY gained, MI SIJF has a probability of being cost-effective versus NSM strategies of 96%, 97%, and 91% for strategies 1, 2, and 3, respectively. CONCLUSION: MI SIJF appears to be cost-effective over a 5-year time horizon when compared to traditional NSM pathways in an NHS context.
