ArticlePulmonary therapy2024
Health and Economic Impact of Different Long-Term Oxygen Therapeutic Strategies in Patients with Chronic Respiratory Failure: A French Nationwide Health Claims Database (SNDS) Study.
Article in Pulmonary therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLong-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) is reported to improve survival in patients with chronic respiratory failure. We aimed to describe effectiveness, burden, and cost of illness of patients treated with portable oxygen concentrators (POC) compared to other LTOT options.
methodsThis retrospective comparative analysis included adult patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency and failure (CRF) upon a first delivery of LTOT between 2014 and 2019 and followed until December 2020, based on the French national healthcare database SNDS. Patients using POC, alone or in combination, were compared with patients using stationary concentrators alone (aSC), or compressed tanks (CTC) or liquid oxygen (LO2), matched on the basis of age, gender, comorbidities, and stationary concentrator use.
resultsAmong 244,719 LTOT patients (mean age 75 ± 12, 48% women) included, 38% used aSC, 46% mobile oxygen in the form of LO2 (29%) and POC (18%), whereas 9% used CTC. The risk of death over the 72-month follow-up was estimated to be 13%, 15%, and 12% lower for patients in the POC group compared to aSC, CTC, and LO2, respectively. In the POC group yearly mean total costs per patient were 5% higher and 4% lower compared to aSC and CTC groups, respectively, and comparable in the LO2 group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of POC was €8895, €6288, and €13,152 per year of life gained compared to aSC, CTC, and LO2, respectively.
conclusionWithin the POC group, we detected an association between higher mobility (POCs autonomy higher than 5 h), improved survival, lower costs, and ICER - €6 238, compared to lower mobility POCs users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.