Richard D Kim1,2,3, Vishesh K Kapur3, Julie Redline-Bruch4, Michael Rueschman5, Dennis H Auckley6, Ruth M Benca7, Nancy R Foldvary-Schafer8, Conrad Iber9, Phyllis C Zee10, Carol L Rosen11, Susan Redline12, Scott D Ramsey2. 1. Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 2. Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 4. Mathematica Policy Research, Cambridge, MA. 5. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 6. MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. 7. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 8. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 9. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 10. Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 11. University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. 12. Brigham and Women's Hospital and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: We conducted an economic analysis of the HomePAP study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial that compared home-based versus laboratory-based testing for the diagnosis and management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). DESIGN: A cost-minimization analysis from the payer and provider perspectives was performed, given that 3-mo clinical outcomes were equivalent. SETTING: Seven academic sleep centers. PARTICIPANTS: There were 373 subjects at high risk for moderate to severe OSA. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were randomized to either home-based limited channel portable monitoring followed by unattended autotitration with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), versus a traditional pathway of in-laboratory sleep study and CPAP titration. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: From the payer perspective, per subject costs for the laboratory-based pathway were $1,840 (95% confidence interval [CI] $1,660, $2,015) compared to $1,575 (95% CI $1,439, $1,716) for the home-based pathway under the base case. Costs were $264 (95% CI $39, $496, P = 0.02) in favor of the home arm. From the provider perspective, per subject costs for the laboratory arm were $1,697 (95% CI $1,566, $1,826) compared to $1,736 (95% CI $1,621, $1,857) in the home arm, for a difference of $40 (95% CI -$213, $142, P = 0.66) in favor of the laboratory arm under the base case. The provider operating margin was $142 (95% CI $85, $202,P < 0.01) in the laboratory arm, compared to a loss of -$161 (95% CI -$202, -$120, P < 0.01) in the home arm. CONCLUSIONS: For payers, a home-based diagnostic pathway for obstructive sleep apnea with robust patient support incurs fewer costs than a laboratory-based pathway. For providers, costs are comparable if not higher, resulting in a negative operating margin. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00642486.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: We conducted an economic analysis of the HomePAP study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial that compared home-based versus laboratory-based testing for the diagnosis and management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). DESIGN: A cost-minimization analysis from the payer and provider perspectives was performed, given that 3-mo clinical outcomes were equivalent. SETTING: Seven academic sleep centers. PARTICIPANTS: There were 373 subjects at high risk for moderate to severe OSA. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were randomized to either home-based limited channel portable monitoring followed by unattended autotitration with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), versus a traditional pathway of in-laboratory sleep study and CPAP titration. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: From the payer perspective, per subject costs for the laboratory-based pathway were $1,840 (95% confidence interval [CI] $1,660, $2,015) compared to $1,575 (95% CI $1,439, $1,716) for the home-based pathway under the base case. Costs were $264 (95% CI $39, $496, P = 0.02) in favor of the home arm. From the provider perspective, per subject costs for the laboratory arm were $1,697 (95% CI $1,566, $1,826) compared to $1,736 (95% CI $1,621, $1,857) in the home arm, for a difference of $40 (95% CI -$213, $142, P = 0.66) in favor of the laboratory arm under the base case. The provider operating margin was $142 (95% CI $85, $202,P < 0.01) in the laboratory arm, compared to a loss of -$161 (95% CI -$202, -$120, P < 0.01) in the home arm. CONCLUSIONS: For payers, a home-based diagnostic pathway for obstructive sleep apnea with robust patient support incurs fewer costs than a laboratory-based pathway. For providers, costs are comparable if not higher, resulting in a negative operating margin. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00642486.
Authors: Robert P Skomro; John Gjevre; John Reid; Brian McNab; Sunita Ghosh; Maryla Stiles; Ruzica Jokic; Heather Ward; David Cotton Journal: Chest Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Samuel T Kuna; Indira Gurubhagavatula; Greg Maislin; Sakhena Hin; Kathryn C Hartwig; Sue McCloskey; Robert Hachadoorian; Sharon Hurley; Rajesh Gupta; Bethany Staley; Charles W Atwood Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Nancy A Collop; W McDowell Anderson; Brian Boehlecke; David Claman; Rochelle Goldberg; Daniel J Gottlieb; David Hudgel; Michael Sateia; Richard Schwab Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2007-12-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Kaiyin Zhu; Michael Li; Sina Akbarian; Maziar Hafezi; Azadeh Yadollahi; Babak Taati Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Jay S Balachandran; Carey C Thomson; Dezmond B Sumter; Anita V Shelgikar; Philippe Lachapelle; Sushmita Pamidi; Michael Fall; Chitra Lal; Ridhwan Y Baba; Neomi Shah; Barry G Fields; Kathleen Sarmiento; Matthew P Butler; Steven A Shea; Janelle V Baptiste; Katherine M Sharkey; Tisha Wang Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2016-04
Authors: Ying Y Zhao; Jia Weng; Daniel R Mobley; Rui Wang; Younghoon Kwon; Phyllis C Zee; Pamela L Lutsey; Susan Redline Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2017-01-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Lucas M Donovan; Aditi Shah; Ching Li Chai-Coetzer; Ferran Barbé; Najib T Ayas; Vishesh K Kapur Journal: Chest Date: 2019-10-19 Impact factor: 9.410