Costs, quality-adjusted life years, and value-of-information of different thresholds for the initiation of invasive ventilation in hypoxemic respiratory failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To estimate costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and the value of undertaking a future randomized controlled trial for different oxygenation thresholds used to initiate invasive ventilation in hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design Model-based cost-utility estimation with individual-level simulation and value-of-information analysis. Setting Critical care units. Participants Adults admitted to critical care receiving non-invasive oxygen. Interventions We compared four strategies: initiation of invasive ventilation at thresholds of saturation-to-inspired oxygen fraction ratio (SF) < 110, < 98, or < 88, and usual care. Main results An invasive ventilation initiation threshold of SF < 110, compared to usual care, resulted in more predicted invasive ventilation (62% vs 31%), hospital survival (78.4% vs 75.5%), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (8.48 vs 8.34), and lifetime costs (86,700 Canadian dollars (CAD) vs 75,600 CAD). Among the four strategies, threshold SF < 110 had the highest expected net monetary benefit (761,000 CAD), but there was significant uncertainty, because all four strategies had similar probability (range: 23.5% to 27.5%) of having the best net monetary benefit. The expected value to society over the next 10 years of a 400-person randomized trial of oxygenation thresholds was 4.27 billion CAD, and remained high (2.64 billion CAD) in a scenario analysis considering a hypothetical threshold that resulted in less invasive ventilation and similar survival compared to usual care. Conclusion The preferred threshold to initiate invasive ventilation in hypoxemic respiratory failure is uncertain. It would be highly valuable to society to identify thresholds that, in comparison to usual care, either improve survival or reduce invasive ventilation without reducing survival. Key points Question What are the costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with different oxygenation thresholds for initiating invasive ventilation, and what is the expected value to society of a randomized controlled trial? Findings In this health economic evaluation comparing usual care to three different thresholds for initiating invasive ventilation in hypoxemic respiratory failure based on the saturation-to-inspired oxygen fraction ratio (SF), we found that threshold SF < 110 had the highest expected quality-adjusted life-years and net monetary benefit, despite increased predicted invasive ventilation use. However, there was significant residual uncertainty, and the expected value to society of a 400-person randomized trial to compare thresholds for initiating invasive ventilation was greater than 2.5 billion Canadian dollars. Meaning The preferred threshold to initiate invasive ventilation in hypoxemic respiratory failure is uncertain and further study would be valuable to society. Social media summary When should we intubate and start invasive ventilation for people with hypoxemic respiratory failure? Our health economic evaluation shows that the preferred threshold is uncertain, but that a clinical trial to determine such a threshold would be immensely valuable to patients and society
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".