- Conference Article
- 10.1183/13993003.congress-2025.pa5631
Assessments of Hybrid Personalised Support Plans to Improve Positive Airway Pressure Adherence
- Sep 27, 2025
- Paula Pinto + 12 more +12
<bold>Introduction:</bold> Adherence is a main factor to Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) effectiveness. <bold>Methods:</bold> Multicentre randomised (1:0) controlled trial comparing a personalised support plan based on patient needs (VitalCare) vs usual follow-up by the homecare provider in patients with OSA starting PAP in Portugal. Also, a health economic model relying on the established relationship between PAP use and effectiveness was developed. <bold>Results:</bold> 107 patients were analysed (65 Males; 57years; AHI:30.4; ESS:9.9). The primary endpoint was not statistically significant (mean PAP use at 3 months) although a trend in favour of VitalCare was observed for all adherence outcomes. The rate of adherent patients was statistically higher with VitalCare at 6 and 12 months (Table 1). The health economic model estimates clinical events and costs avoided for the 6,500 patients currently followed by VitalCare in Portugal (Table 2). <bold>Conclusion:</bold> Personalised support plans delivered by VitalAire homecare provider in Portugal improve PAP use. This could represent a health benefit and substantial savings. <table-wrap><object-id>erj;66/suppl_69/PA5631/TB1</object-id><object-id>T1</object-id><object-id>TB1</object-id><caption> <bold>Table 1: Adherence outcomes</bold> </caption><table><colgroup><col></col><col></col><col></col><col></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td></td><td> <bold>VitalCare</bold> n=56 </td><td> <bold>Standard care</bold> <bold>n=51</bold> </td><td>p-value</td></tr><tr><td> <bold>Mean(sd) daily number of hours of PAP use</bold> 3 months, primary endpoint 6 months 12 months </td><td> 4.61(2.24) 4.63(2.18) 4.55(2.14) </td><td> 3.85(2.62) 3.86(2.68) 3.86(2.69) </td><td> 0.059 0.042 0.075 </td></tr><tr><td> <bold>Adherent patients</bold> (≥4h/day), n(%) 3 months 6 months 12 months </td><td> 35(62.5) 36(64.3) 39(69.6) </td><td> 25(50.0) 23(45.1) 25(49.0) </td><td> 0.195 0.046 0.030 </td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap> <table-wrap><object-id>erj;66/suppl_69/PA5631/TB2</object-id><object-id>T2</object-id><object-id>TB2</object-id><caption> <bold>Table 2: Yearly estimated health economic impact</bold> </caption><table><colgroup><col></col><col></col><col></col></colgroup><tbody><tr><td></td><td>n=6,500</td><td>Per patient</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Direct costs</bold></td><td>-1.7 M€</td><td> <bold>Clinical events avoided:</bold> -98 new diagnoses of cancer -398 cardiovascular events -139 road traffic accidents -7 occupational accidents </td><td>-255€</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Indirect costs</bold></td><td>-1.4 M€</td><td>-16,597 workdays missed</td><td>-220€</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap>
Read more