IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v4y2020i4d10.1007_s41669-020-00210-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Protocolised Weaning that Includes Early Extubation Onto Non-Invasive Ventilation More Cost Effective Than Protocolised Weaning Without Non-Invasive Ventilation? Findings from the Breathe Study

Author

Listed:
  • Iftekhar Khan

    (University of Warwick
    University of Oxford)

  • Mandy Maredza

    (University of Warwick)

  • Melina Dritsaki

    (University of Oxford)

  • Dipesh Mistry

    (University of Warwick)

  • Ranjit Lall

    (University of Warwick)

  • Sarah E. Lamb

    (University of Warwick
    University of Oxford)

  • Keith Couper

    (University of Warwick)

  • Simon Gates

    (University of Warwick)

  • Gavin D. Perkins

    (University of Warwick)

  • Stavros Petrou

    (University of Warwick
    University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter)

Abstract

Background Optimising techniques to wean patients from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains a key goal of intensive care practice. The use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as a weaning strategy (transitioning patients who are difficult to wean to early NIV) may reduce mortality, ventilator-associated pneumonia and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. Objectives Our objectives were to determine the cost effectiveness of protocolised weaning, including early extubation onto NIV, compared with weaning without NIV in a UK National Health Service setting. Methods We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised to either protocol-directed weaning from mechanical ventilation or ongoing IMV with daily spontaneous breathing trials. The primary efficacy outcome was time to liberation from ventilation. Bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) provided estimates of the incremental cost per QALY and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) overall and for subgroups [presence/absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and operative status]. Long-term cost effectiveness was determined through extrapolation of survival curves using flexible parametric modelling. Results NIV was associated with a mean INMB of £620 ($US885) (cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY) with a corresponding probability of 58% that NIV is cost effective. The probability that NIV is cost effective was higher for those with COPD (84%). NIV was cost effective over 5 years, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £4618 ($US6594 per QALY gained). Conclusions The probability of NIV being cost effective relative to weaning without NIV ranged between 57 and 59% overall and between 82 and 87% for the COPD subgroup.

Suggested Citation

  • Iftekhar Khan & Mandy Maredza & Melina Dritsaki & Dipesh Mistry & Ranjit Lall & Sarah E. Lamb & Keith Couper & Simon Gates & Gavin D. Perkins & Stavros Petrou, 2020. "Is Protocolised Weaning that Includes Early Extubation Onto Non-Invasive Ventilation More Cost Effective Than Protocolised Weaning Without Non-Invasive Ventilation? Findings from the Breathe Study," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 697-710, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-020-00210-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-020-00210-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-020-00210-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-020-00210-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Melina Dritsaki & Felix Achana & James Mason & Stavros Petrou, 2017. "Methodological Issues Surrounding the Use of Baseline Health-Related Quality of Life Data to Inform Trial-Based Economic Evaluations of Interventions Within Emergency and Critical Care Settings: A Sys," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 501-515, May.
    2. Karl Claxton & Steve Martin & Marta Soares & Nigel Rice & Eldon Spackman & Sebastian Hinde & Nancy Devlin & Peter C Smith & Mark Sculpher, 2013. "Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold," Working Papers 081cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 21st December 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-12-21 12:00:05

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Eldon Spackman & Stewart Richmond & Mark Sculpher & Martin Bland & Stephen Brealey & Rhian Gabe & Ann Hopton & Ada Keding & Harriet Lansdown & Sara Perren & David Torgerson & Ian Watt & Hugh MacPherso, 2014. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Acupuncture, Counselling and Usual Care in Treating Patients with Depression: The Results of the ACUDep Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-12, November.
    3. Paul Revill & Simon Walker & Valentina Cambiano & Andrew Phillips & Mark J Sculpher, 2018. "Reflecting the real value of health care resources in modelling and cost-effectiveness studies—The example of viral load informed differentiated care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Hareth Al-Janabi & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer & Joanna Coast, 2016. "A Framework for Including Family Health Spillovers in Economic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 176-186, February.
    5. Ryen, Linda & Svensson, Mikael, 2014. "The Willingness to Pay for a QALY: a Review of the Empirical Literature," Karlstad University Working Papers in Economics 12, Karlstad University, Department of Economics.
    6. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    7. B. Rodríguez-Sánchez & L. M. Peña-Longobardo & A. J. Sinclair, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Neuropad device as a screening tool for early diabetic peripheral neuropathy," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 335-349, April.
    8. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson, 2013. "Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: a tutorial," Working Papers 092cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    9. Beth Woods & Paul Revill & Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2015. "Country-level cost-effectiveness thresholds: initial estimates and the need for further research," Working Papers 109cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    10. Stephen Martin & James Lomas & Karl Claxton & Francesco Longo, 2021. "How Effective is Marginal Healthcare Expenditure? New Evidence from England for 2003/04 to 2012/13," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 885-903, November.
    11. Paul Revill & Simon Walker & Jason Madan & Andrea Ciaranello & Takondwa Mwase & Diana M Gibb & Karl Claxton & Mark J Sculpher, 2014. "Using cost-effectiveness thresholds to determine value for money in low- and middle-income country healthcare systems: Are current international norms fit for purpose?," Working Papers 098cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    12. Torbjørn Wisløff & Gunhild Hagen & Vida Hamidi & Espen Movik & Marianne Klemp & Jan Olsen, 2014. "Estimating QALY Gains in Applied Studies: A Review of Cost-Utility Analyses Published in 2010," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 367-375, April.
    13. Jessica Ochalek & Haiyin Wang & Yuanyuan Gu & James Lomas & Henry Cutler & Chunlin Jin, 2020. "Informing a Cost-Effectiveness Threshold for Health Technology Assessment in China: A Marginal Productivity Approach," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(12), pages 1319-1331, December.
    14. Adrian Towse;Paul Barnsley;Sarah Karlsberg-Schaffer;Jon Sussex, 2013. "Critique of CHE Research Paper 81: Methods for the Estimation of the NICE Cost Effectiveness Threshold," Occasional Paper 000106, Office of Health Economics.
    15. Ulrikke J. V. Hernæs & Kjell A. Johansson & Trygve Ottersen & Ole F. Norheim, 2017. "Distribution-Weighted Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Lifetime Health Loss," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(9), pages 965-974, September.
    16. Simon Eckermann, 2015. "Kinky Thresholds Revisited: Opportunity Costs Differ in the NE and SW Quadrants," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 7-13, February.
    17. Doug Coyle & Matthew C. Cheung & Gerald A. Evans, 2014. "Opportunity Cost of Funding Drugs for Rare Diseases," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(8), pages 1016-1029, November.
    18. Pieter van Baal & Meg Perry‐Duxbury & Pieter Bakx & Matthijs Versteegh & Eddy van Doorslaer & Werner Brouwer, 2019. "A cost‐effectiveness threshold based on the marginal returns of cardiovascular hospital spending," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 87-100, January.
    19. Brick, Aoife & Gorecki, Paul K. & Nolan, Anne, 2013. "Ireland: Pharmaceutical Prices, Prescribing Practices and Usage of Generics in a Comparative Context," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS32, June.
    20. Helen Weatherly & Rita Faria & Bernard Van den Berg & Mark Sculpher & Peter O’Neill & Kay Nolan & Julie Glanville & Jaana Isojarvi & Erin Baragula & Mary Edwards, 2017. "Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods," Working Papers 150cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-020-00210-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.