BACKGROUND: National health insurance coverage for third-generation heat and moisture exchanger (HME) was approved in Japan for patients after total laryngectomy (TL). Our study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of third-generation HMEs (Provox® Life™ such as Provox® Life Night, Go, Home, Energy, and Protect) versus second-generation HMEs and no HME for patients who underwent TL in Japan. METHODS: A Markov model with five health states was developed using an existing model from a Japanese public healthcare payer perspective, with a time horizon of 10 years and a cycle length of one year. Primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs), while secondary outcomes were pulmonary infection, mucus plug event and skin irritation. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) were also conducted to determine the robustness of model conclusions. RESULTS: Third-generation HMEs resulted in an ICER of JPY 2,350,010 per QALY gained, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of JPY 5,000,000 per QALY gained, as compared to second-generation HMEs, indicating cost-effectiveness. Similarly, with an ICER of JPY 4,708,917 per QALY gained, third-generation HMEs were also more cost-effective than no HME. Third-generation HMEs showed a decrease in pulmonary infections (average amounts of pulmonary infections per patient over 10 years: 0.26 vs. 0.39 and 0.55), mucus plug event (0.29 vs. 0.47 and 2.14) and skin irritation (1.80 vs. 2.78 and 0.00) compared to second-generation HMEs and no HME. According to OWSA, the transition probabilities between health states were the main drivers for the cost difference between third-generation and second-generation HMEs. PSA confirmed the robustness of the findings. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to evaluate cost-effectiveness of HMEs in Japan, suggesting that third-generation HMEs (Provox® Life™) are more cost-effective compared to second-generation HMEs and no HME for patients who underwent TL in Japan.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oridate et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: