PURPOSE: Oral appliances (OA) are commonly prescribed for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (OSAH), but there is limited evidence on their cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model was designed to simulate the costs and benefits of treatment of OSAH with OA or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) based on their effects on quality of life, motor vehicle crashes, and cardiovascular effects. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of costs per one quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained 5 years after treatment. RESULTS: Compared with no treatment, OA results in $268 higher costs and an incremental QALY of 0.0899 per patient (ICER = $2,984/QALY). Compared with OA, CPAP resulted in $1,917 more costs and 0.0696 additional QALYs (ICER = $27,540/QALY). For the most part in the sensitivity analyses, CPAP remained cost-effective compared to OA, and OA remained cost-effective with respect to no treatment in almost all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: OAs are less economically attractive than CPAP but remain a cost-effective treatment for patients who are unwilling or unable to adhere to CPAP therapy.
PURPOSE: Oral appliances (OA) are commonly prescribed for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (OSAH), but there is limited evidence on their cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model was designed to simulate the costs and benefits of treatment of OSAH with OA or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) based on their effects on quality of life, motor vehicle crashes, and cardiovascular effects. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of costs per one quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained 5 years after treatment. RESULTS: Compared with no treatment, OA results in $268 higher costs and an incremental QALY of 0.0899 per patient (ICER = $2,984/QALY). Compared with OA, CPAP resulted in $1,917 more costs and 0.0696 additional QALYs (ICER = $27,540/QALY). For the most part in the sensitivity analyses, CPAP remained cost-effective compared to OA, and OA remained cost-effective with respect to no treatment in almost all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: OAs are less economically attractive than CPAP but remain a cost-effective treatment for patients who are unwilling or unable to adhere to CPAP therapy.
Authors: Raphael Carandang; Sudha Seshadri; Alexa Beiser; Margaret Kelly-Hayes; Carlos S Kase; William B Kannel; Philip A Wolf Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-12-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maree Barnes; R Douglas McEvoy; Siobhan Banks; Natalie Tarquinio; Christopher G Murray; Norman Vowles; Robert J Pierce Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2004-06-16 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Christopher J Lettieri; Nathalie Paolino; Arn H Eliasson; Anita A Shah; Aaron B Holley Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2011-10-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Jonathan R Skirko; Kathryn T James; Louis P Garrison; Edward M Weaver Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Grietje E de Vries; Aarnoud Hoekema; Karin M Vermeulen; Johannes Q P J Claessen; Wouter Jacobs; Jan van der Maten; Johannes H van der Hoeven; Boudewijn Stegenga; Huib A M Kerstjens; Peter J Wijkstra Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 4.062