Efficacy of Nocturnal Nasal Ventilation in Stable, Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease During a 3-Month Controlled Trial

Hubmayr, Rolf D.; Stroetz, Randolph W.

doi:10.4065/71.6.533

Cited by 149 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All prior studies evaluating NIV assessed exercise tolerance via the 6-min walk test or shuttle walk test and showed no improvement in the NIV groups, 18,19,[24][25][26] in agreement with our findings.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Noninvasive Ventilation in Mustard Airway Diseases

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been shown to improve numerous clinical measures in subjects with COPD, including gas exchange, exercise tolerance, dyspnea, hospitalizations, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and functional status. Although useful for classical COPD, NIV has not been validated specifically as a treatment option for mustard airway disease. Our aim was to assess the efficacy of NIV in subjects with severe mustard airway disease. METHODS: This study was performed over the course of 12 months on 20 subjects with severe mustard airway disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease criteria). Subjects were selected from the pulmonary clinic of Baqiyatallah Hospital in Tehran, Iran. Body mass index, lung function, dyspnea, exercise tolerance, HRQOL, sleep quality, and hospitalization measures were assessed before and after NIV treatment. RESULTS: NIV improved HRQOL (P ‫؍‬ .03) and sleep quality (P ‫؍‬ .06) in very severe subjects and reduced hospitalizations (P ‫؍‬ .003) and exacerbations (P ‫؍‬ .01) in severe subjects. Chest imaging studies showed that these subjects had heterogeneous airway disease, the main finding of which was bronchiolitis obliterans. CONCLUSIONS: NIV can be used as an effective new palliative method in the treatment of mustard airway disorders.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Noninvasive Ventilation in Mustard Airway Diseases

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sin et al (2007) 82 also used CPAP as sham therapy, while Gay et al (1996) 100 used the same NIV equipment in the usual-care arm but 'ventilated' with lowest EPAP level and had no added IPAP or timed breaths.…”

Section: Clinical Effectiveness Review Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Dretzke

Blissett

Dave

et al. 2015

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic progressive lung disease characterised by non-reversible airflow obstruction. Exacerbations are a key cause of morbidity and mortality and place a considerable burden on health-care systems. While there is evidence that patients benefit from non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in hospital during an acute exacerbation, evidence supporting home use for more stable COPD patients is limited. In the UK, domiciliary NIV is considered on health economic grounds in patients after three hospital admissions for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV by systematic review and economic evaluation.Data sourcesBibliographic databases, conference proceedings and ongoing trial registries up to September 2014.MethodsStandard systematic review methods were used for identifying relevant clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies assessing NIV compared with usual care or comparing different types of NIV. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane guidelines and relevant economic checklists. Results for primary effectiveness outcomes (mortality, hospitalisations, exacerbations and quality of life) were presented, where possible, in forest plots. A speculative Markov decision model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care from a UK perspective for post-hospital and more stable populations separately.ResultsThirty-one controlled effectiveness studies were identified, which report a variety of outcomes. For stable patients, a modest volume of evidence found no benefit from domiciliary NIV for survival and some non-significant beneficial trends for hospitalisations and quality of life. For post-hospital patients, no benefit from NIV could be shown in terms of survival (from randomised controlled trials) and findings for hospital admissions were inconsistent and based on limited evidence. No conclusions could be drawn regarding potential benefit from different types of NIV. No cost-effectiveness studies of domiciliary NIV were identified. Economic modelling suggested that NIV may be cost-effective in a stable population at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £28,162), but this is associated with uncertainty. In the case of the post-hospital population, results for three separate base cases ranged from usual care dominating to NIV being cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £10,000 per QALY gained. All estimates were sensitive to effectiveness estimates, length of benefit from NIV (currently unknown) and some costs. Modelling suggested that reductions in the rate of hospital admissions per patient per year of 24% and 15% in the stable and post-hospital populations, respectively, are required for NIV to be cost-effective.LimitationsEvidence on key clinical outcomes remains limited, particularly quality-of-life and long-term (> 2 years) effects. Economic modelling should be viewed as speculative because of uncertainty around effect estimates, baseline risks, length of benefit of NIV and limited quality-of-life/utility data.ConclusionsThe cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV remains uncertain and the findings in this report are sensitive to emergent data. Further evidence is required to identify patients most likely to benefit from domiciliary NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting NIV and equipment settings.Future work recommendationsThe results from this report will need to be re-examined in the light of any new trial results, particularly in terms of reducing the uncertainty in the economic model. Any new randomised controlled trials should consider including a sham non-invasive ventilation arm and/or a higher- and lower-pressure arm. Individual participant data analyses may help to determine whether or not there are any patient characteristics or equipment settings that are predictive of a benefit of NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting (and potentially discounting) NIV.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003286.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

show abstract

“…It is possible, however, that, with this short-term (2-week) protocol, full acclimatisation to NIV did not occur during the period of the study, and the level of pressure support employed was low (mean 12 cmH 2 O). A 3-month study of NIV versus sham NIV was carried out by GAY et al [40]. Only four of seven patients tolerated bilevel NIV, and no change in arterial blood gas tensions was seen.…”

Section: Home Mechanical Ventilation In Chronic Obstructive Pulmonarymentioning

confidence: 99%