Résumé
Introduction: Long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) is reported to improve survival in patients with chronic respiratory failure. We aimed to describe effectiveness, burden, and cost of illness of patients treated with portable oxygen concentrators (POC) compared to other LTOT options.Methods: This retrospective comparative analysis included adult patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency and failure (CRF) upon a first delivery of LTOT between 2014 and 2019 and followed until December 2020, based on the French national healthcare database SNDS. Patients using POC, alone or in combination, were compared with patients using stationary concentrators alone (aSC), or compressed tanks (CTC) or liquid oxygen (LO2), matched on the basis of age, gender, comorbidities, and stationary concentrator use.Results: Among 244,719 LTOT patients (mean age 75 ± 12, 48% women) included, 38% used aSC, 46% mobile oxygen in the form of LO2 (29%) and POC (18%), whereas 9% used CTC. The risk of death over the 72-month follow-up was estimated to be 13%, 15%, and 12% lower for patients in the POC group compared to aSC, CTC, and LO2, respectively. In the POC group yearly mean total costs per patient were 5% higher and 4% lower compared to aSC and CTC groups, respectively, and comparable in the LO2 group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of POC was €8895, €6288, and €13,152 per year of life gained compared to aSC, CTC, and LO2, respectively.Conclusion: Within the POC group, we detected an association between higher mobility (POCs autonomy higher than 5 h), improved survival, lower costs, and ICER − €6 238, compared to lower mobility POCs users.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41030-024-00259-x.