• Jan B Pietzsch, Shan Liu, Abigail M Garner, Eric J Kezirian, and Patrick J Strollo.
• Wing Tech Inc., Menlo Park, CA.
• Sleep. 2015 May 1; 38 (5): 735-44.

Study ObjectivesUpper airway stimulation (UAS) is a new approach to treat moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea. Recently, 12-month data from the Stimulation Treatment for Apnea Reduction (STAR) trial were reported, evaluating the effectiveness of UAS in patients intolerant or non-adherent to continuous positive airway pressure therapy. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of UAS from a U.S. payer perspective.DesignA 5-state Markov model was used to predict cardiovascular endpoints (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, hypertension), motor vehicle collisions (MVC), mortality, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. We computed 10-year relative event risks and the lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in $/QALY, comparing UAS therapy to no treatment under the assumption that the STAR trial-observed reduction in mean apnea-hypopnea index from 32.0 to 15.3 events/h was maintained. Costs and effects were discounted at 3% per year.SettingU.S. healthcare system; third-party payer perspective.Participants83% male cohort with mean age of 54.5 years.InterventionsUAS vs. no treatment.Measurements And ResultsUAS substantially reduced event probabilities over 10 years (relative risks: MI 0.63; stroke 0.75; MVC 0.34), and was projected to add 1.09 QALYs over the patient's lifetime. Costs were estimated to increase by $42,953, resulting in a lifetime ICER of $39,471/QALY.ConclusionsRelative to the acknowledged willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000-$100,000/QALY, our results indicate upper airway stimulation is a cost-effective therapy in the U.S. healthcare system.© 2015 Associated Professional Sleep Societies, LLC.

26 keywords...

hide…