Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide Testing for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma: a Health Technology Assessment.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Asthma is a common respiratory disease characterized by airflow obstruction caused by inflammation and narrowing of the airways. Nitric oxide is a gas that is present at low levels in the lungs, but that is elevated in the presence of airway inflammation. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) testing may help in the diagnosis and management of asthma by measuring the amount of nitric oxide in the breath. We conducted a health technology assessment of FeNO testing for the diagnosis and management of asthma in children and adults, which included an evaluation of the accuracy, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding FeNO testing, and patient preferences and values. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, version 2 (QUADAS-2) and of each systematic review using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (ROBIS). We evaluated the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted cost-utility analyses with a 20-year time horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding FeNO testing in children and adults in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of FeNO testing, we spoke with people with asthma and their care partners. Results: We included 48 primary studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of FeNO testing and 2 reviews evaluating the effectiveness of FeNO testing for asthma management in the clinical evidence review. The use of FeNO testing for the diagnosis of asthma reported variable (~30% to 90%) sensitivities (GRADE: Very low) and consistently high (~70% to 100%) specificities (GRADE: Low) in children and adults. FeNO testing for asthma management likely reduced exacerbations in children (GRADE: Moderate) and adults (GRADE: Moderate), lowered oral corticosteroid use in children (GRADE: Moderate), and slightly improved lung function in a mixed population (GRADE: Moderate), but little to no improvement was seen in other outcomes. We found that, for asthma diagnosis, FeNO testing in addition to standard testing is cost-effective in children, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $6,192 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. FeNO testing is not cost-effective for asthma diagnosis in adults except when a higher FeNO cut-off is applied. For asthma management, the ICER of FeNO testing compared with standard care alone is $103,893 per QALY gained in children and $200,135 per QALY gained in adults. Publicly funding FeNO testing as an adjunct to standard testing for asthma diagnosis over the next 5 years would cost about $0.10 million to $0.22 million for children and $1.19 million to $1.61 million for adults over the next 5 years, and for asthma management would cost about $22.37 million for children and $195.99 million for adults over the next 5 years. Participants were unaware if they had experience with FeNO testing because of its similarity to other types of asthma testing, but they reported valuing the potential of FeNO testing to provide more information about their condition as well as aid in the diagnosis and management. Barriers to access include lack of awareness and the limited availability of FeNO testing across the province. Conclusions: We found that FeNO testing had good diagnostic specificity (i.e., low false positive rate), supporting its use as an adjunct to standard testing to help rule-in an asthma diagnosis in both children and adults. FeNO testing to monitor and manage asthma likely resulted in a reduction in the number of people who experienced exacerbations and used oral corticosteroids, but may make little to no difference in improving other health outcomes. FeNO testing is likely cost-effective as an additional test to support the diagnosis of asthma in children, as well as in adults when a higher FeNO cut-off is applied, but is likely not cost-effective as an additional test to monitor and manage asthma in both children and adults. We estimate that publicly funding FeNO testing as an adjunct to standard testing for asthma diagnosis in Ontario would result in additional costs of $0.10 million to $0.22 million for children and $1.19 million to $1.61 million for adults over the next 5 years. For monitoring and managing asthma, FeNO testing would result in additional costs of $22.37 million for children and $195.99 million for adults over the next 5 years. People we spoke with were unaware if they had experience with FeNO testing because of its similarity to other types of asthma testing, but they reported valuing the potential of FeNO testing to provide more information about their condition as well as aid in the diagnosis and management of asthma.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,091 | 0,280 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,019 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,029 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».