Home-Based Heated Humidified High-Flow Therapy for Respiratory Conditions: A Health Technology Assessment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Respiratory conditions encompass a wide range of disorders that affect the lungs and other parts of the respiratory system. These conditions vary greatly in severity and impact, from mild, transient issues to chronic, life-threatening diseases. Treatment options include medications, pulmonary rehabilitation, surgery, and respiratory therapies such as mechanical ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure, bilevel positive airway pressure, conventional oxygen therapies, and heated humidified high-flow therapy (HHHFT). We conducted a health technology assessment of home-based HHHFT for (1) children with pediatric obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who cannot tolerate conventional respiratory therapies at home, and (2) adults and children hospitalized for respiratory conditions who will need treatment at home once they are discharged and who have no at-home alternatives that offer an equivalent level of support. This assessment included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, the budget impact of publicly funding home-based HHHFT, and patient preferences and values. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence of the effectiveness and safety of home-based HHHFT for the populations described above. We performed a systematic economic literature search, but we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation because of a lack of evidence. We analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding home-based HHHFT in children with pediatric OSA and in adults and children with other respiratory conditions in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of home-based HHHFT, we aimed to speak with adults and care partners of children in Ontario who had lived experience of respiratory conditions, including those with and without direct experience of HHHFT. Results: We did not identify any studies that met the eligibility criteria for our clinical evidence review. The estimated annual budget impact of publicly funding home-based HHHFT in Ontario over the next 5 years ranges from cost savings of $185,981 for children with pediatric OSA to an additional $2.5 million for adults and children with other respiratory conditions. We estimate that publicly funding home-based HHHFT would result in 99 fewer inpatient visits and 127 fewer outpatient visits related to pediatric OSA. It would also result in 653 inpatient days avoided for adults and children with other respiratory conditions. Due to data limitations, these budget impact estimates are highly uncertain. Care partners discussed the difficulties of caring for a child with complex care needs - particularly those of caring for a child with a tracheostomy. They shared their experiences with alternative treatment options that were ineffective in managing their child's symptoms. People with direct experience using home-based HHHFT highlighted its positive impact on their child's respiratory symptoms, improving quality of life and reducing hospital and specialist visits. Initial and ongoing costs were the biggest barriers to accessing HHHFT. Conclusions: We did not identify any studies that specifically evaluated the comparative effectiveness and safety of home-based HHHFT in relation to our research questions, but we did identify several studies conducted in other contexts that demonstrated the benefits of HHHFT, including improved oxygenation, reduced respiratory rates, decreased OSA severity, and fewer acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease when used in hospital and at home. As well, HHHFT is used widely in Ontario hospitals, is generally considered to be clinically effective, and is standard care in such settings. We estimate that publicly funding home-based HHHFT in Ontario over the next 5 years would result in cost savings for children with pediatric OSA and additional costs of $2.5 million for adults and children with other chronic respiratory conditions. We estimate that publicly funding home-based HHHFT would result in fewer inpatient visits, fewer outpatient visits, and inpatient days avoided. Care partners of children with respiratory conditions viewed home-based HHHFT positively; for many, it became an essential treatment when other options failed. However, cost was a substantial barrier to accessing this treatment.
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 | 0.045 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".