ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2023
Cost-effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for the treatment of mild obstructive sleep apnea: an exploratory analysis.
Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the potential cost-effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for treatment of mild obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
methodsA decision-analytic Markov model was developed to estimate health state progression, incremental cost, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of NMES compared to no treatment, continuous airway pressure (CPAP), or oral appliance (OA) treatment. The base case assumed no cardiovascular (CV) benefit for any of the interventions, while potential CV benefit was considered in scenario analyses. Therapy effectiveness was based on a recent multi-center trial for NMES, and on the TOMADO and MERGE studies for OA and CPAP. Costs, considered from a United States payer perspective, were projected over lifetime for a 48-year-old cohort, 68% of whom were male. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold of USD150,000 per QALY gained was applied.
resultsFrom a baseline AHI of 10.2 events/hour, NMES, OA and CPAP reduced the AHI to 6.9, 7.0 and 1.4 events/hour respectively. Long-term therapy adherence was estimated at 65-75% for NMES and 55% for both OA and CPAP. Compared to no treatment, NMES added between 0.268 and 0.536 QALYs and between USD7,481 and USD17,445 in cost, resulting in ICERs between USD15,436 and USD57,844 per QALY gained. Depending on long-term adherence assumptions, either NMES or CPAP were found to be the preferred treatment option, with NMES becoming more attractive with younger age and assuming CPAP was not used for the full night in all patients.
conclusionsNMES might be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with mild OSA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.