Pulmonary rehabilitation is recognized as a core component of the management of individuals with chronic respiratory disease. Since the 2006 American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory ...Society (ERS) Statement on Pulmonary Rehabilitation, there has been considerable growth in our knowledge of its efficacy and scope.
The purpose of this Statement is to update the 2006 document, including a new definition of pulmonary rehabilitation and highlighting key concepts and major advances in the field.
A multidisciplinary committee of experts representing the ATS Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly and the ERS Scientific Group 01.02, "Rehabilitation and Chronic Care," determined the overall scope of this update through group consensus. Focused literature reviews in key topic areas were conducted by committee members with relevant clinical and scientific expertise. The final content of this Statement was agreed on by all members.
An updated definition of pulmonary rehabilitation is proposed. New data are presented on the science and application of pulmonary rehabilitation, including its effectiveness in acutely ill individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and in individuals with other chronic respiratory diseases. The important role of pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic disease management is highlighted. In addition, the role of health behavior change in optimizing and maintaining benefits is discussed.
The considerable growth in the science and application of pulmonary rehabilitation since 2006 adds further support for its efficacy in a wide range of individuals with chronic respiratory disease.
Despite the increasing popularity of multi-model comparison studies and their ability to inform policy recommendations, clear guidance on how to conduct multi-model comparisons is not available. ...Herein, we present guidelines to provide a structured approach to comparisons of multiple models of interventions against infectious diseases. The primary target audience for these guidelines are researchers carrying out model comparison studies and policy-makers using model comparison studies to inform policy decisions.
The consensus process used for the development of the guidelines included a systematic review of existing model comparison studies on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaccination, a 2-day meeting and guideline development workshop during which mathematical modellers from different disease areas critically discussed and debated the guideline content and wording, and several rounds of comments on sequential versions of the guidelines by all authors.
The guidelines provide principles for multi-model comparisons, with specific practice statements on what modellers should do for six domains. The guidelines provide explanation and elaboration of the principles and practice statements as well as some examples to illustrate these. The principles are (1) the policy and research question - the model comparison should address a relevant, clearly defined policy question; (2) model identification and selection - the identification and selection of models for inclusion in the model comparison should be transparent and minimise selection bias; (3) harmonisation - standardisation of input data and outputs should be determined by the research question and value of the effort needed for this step; (4) exploring variability - between- and within-model variability and uncertainty should be explored; (5) presenting and pooling results - results should be presented in an appropriate way to support decision-making; and (6) interpretation - results should be interpreted to inform the policy question.
These guidelines should help researchers plan, conduct and report model comparisons of infectious diseases and related interventions in a systematic and structured manner for the purpose of supporting health policy decisions. Adherence to these guidelines will contribute to greater consistency and objectivity in the approach and methods used in multi-model comparisons, and as such improve the quality of modelled evidence for policy.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Ivacaftor (Kalydeco(®), Vertex Pharmaceuticals) is the first of a new class of drugs that target the underlying protein defect in cystic fibrosis (CF). It is aimed at patients with the G551D (glycine ...to aspartate change in nucleotide 1784 in exon 11) mutation; 5.7% of patients with CF in the UK have this mutation.
To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ivacaftor for the treatment of CF in patients aged ≥ 6 years who have the G551D mutation.
Ten databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched from inception to July 2012. Studies that evaluated ivacaftor for the treatment of adults and children (≥ 6 years) with at least one G551D mutation were eligible. There were insufficient data to conduct a formal meta-analysis. The manufacturer of ivacaftor, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, submitted a deterministic patient-level simulation model for the assessment of the lifetime cost-effectiveness of ivacaftor. We modified the model where values were not UK-specific or not recent, or where better estimates could be found. The only change to the model structure was the addition of lung transplantations. We changed utility values, annual decline in percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and the baseline exacerbation rate, and used data from the CF Registry to estimate the relation between costs, age and percentage predicted FEV1. Estimates of treatment effect of ivacaftor came from the clinical effectiveness review. We modelled three scenarios for the longer-term effects of ivacaftor. We also modelled an 'optimistic' scenario for patients aged < 12 years with little lung damage. We conducted a budget impact analysis to estimate the total cost to the NHS of introducing ivacaftor in England.
Three studies were included: a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in adults (n = 167) (≥ 12 years), a RCT in children (n = 26) (6-11 years), and an open-label extension study of the two RCTs. Both RCTs reported significantly greater changes from baseline in all measures of lung function in patients receiving ivacaftor than in those receiving placebo. The mean difference in change in percentage predicted FEV1 was 10.5 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.5 to 12.5 percentage points in the adults' study and 10.0 (95% CI 4.5 to 15.5) percentage points in the children's study at 48 weeks. Improvements in lung function were seen across all subgroups investigated (age, sex, study region and lung function). There were significantly greater improvements in the ivacaftor group than in the placebo group for all outcomes assessed (exacerbations, quality of life, sweat chloride and weight) with the exception of quality of life in children. Improvements were maintained in the open-label trial. Adverse events were mainly minor and comparable across treatment groups. Both RCTs reported more withdrawals in the placebo group than in the ivacaftor group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied between £335,000 and £1,274,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The total additional lifetime costs for all eligible CF patients in England ranged from £438M to £479M; the lifetime cost for standard care only was £72M.
The available evidence suggests that ivacaftor is a clinically effective treatment for patients with CF and the G551D mutation; the high cost of ivacaftor may prove an obstacle in the uptake of this treatment. The main priority for further research is the long-term effectiveness of ivacaftor.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002516.
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
ObjectivesChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines advocate treatment with combinations of long-acting bronchodilators for patients with COPD who have persistent symptoms or continue ...to have exacerbations while using a single bronchodilator. This study assessed the cost-utility of the fixed dose combination of the bronchodilators tiotropium and olodaterol versus two comparators, tiotropium monotherapy and long-acting β2 agonist/inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) combinations, in three European countries: Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands.MethodsA previously published COPD patient-level discrete event simulation model was updated with most recent evidence to estimate lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for COPD patients receiving either tiotropium/olodaterol, tiotropium monotherapy or LABA/ICS. Treatment efficacy covered impact on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), total and severe exacerbations and pneumonias. The unit costs of medication, maintenance treatment, exacerbations and pneumonias were obtained for each country. The country-specific analyses adhered to the Finnish, Swedish and Dutch pharmacoeconomic guidelines, respectively.ResultsTreatment with tiotropium/olodaterol gained QALYs ranging from 0.09 (Finland and Sweden) to 0.11 (the Netherlands) versus tiotropium and 0.23 (Finland and Sweden) to 0.28 (the Netherlands) versus LABA/ICS. The Finnish payer’s incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of tiotropium/olodaterol was €11 000/QALY versus tiotropium and dominant versus LABA/ICS. The Swedish ICERs were €6200/QALY and dominant, respectively (societal perspective). The Dutch ICERs were €14 400 and €9200, respectively (societal perspective). The probability that tiotropium/olodaterol was cost-effective compared with tiotropium at the country-specific (unofficial) threshold values for the maximum willingness to pay for a QALY was 84% for Finland, 98% for Sweden and 99% for the Netherlands. Compared with LABA/ICS, this probability was 100% for all three countries.ConclusionsBased on the simulations, tiotropium/olodaterol is a cost-effective treatment option versus tiotropium or LABA/ICS in all three countries. In both Finland and Sweden, tiotropium/olodaterol is more effective and cost saving (ie, dominant) in comparison with LABA/ICS.
Objectives. To evaluate the impact of adding a respiratory dimension (a bolt-on dimension) to the EQ-5D-5L health state valuations. Methods. Based on extensive regression and principal component ...analyses, 2 respiratory bolt-on candidates were formulated: R1, limitations in physical activities due to shortness of breath, and R2, breathing problems. Valuation interviews for the selected bolt-ons were performed with a representative sample from the Dutch general public using the standardized interview protocol and software of the EuroQol group. Hybrid models based on the combined time-tradeoff (TTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) data were estimated to assess whether the 5 levels of the respiratory bolt-on led to significant changes in utility values. Results. For each bolt-on candidate, slightly more than 200 valuation interviews were conducted. Mean TTO values and DCE choice probabilities for health states with a level 4 or 5 for the respiratory dimension were significantly lower compared with the same health states in the Dutch EQ-5D-5L valuation study without the respiratory dimension. Results of hybrid models showed that for the bolt-on “limitations in physical activities,” the utility decrements were significant for level 3 (–0.055), level 4 (–0.087), and level 5 (–0.135). For “breathing problems,” the utility decrements for the same levels were greater (–0.086, –0.219, and –0.327, respectively). Conclusions. The addition of each of the 2 respiratory bolt-ons to the EQ-5D-5L had a significant effect on the valuation of health states with severe levels for the bolt-on. The bolt-on dimension “breathing problems” showed the greatest utility decrements and therefore seems the most appropriate respiratory bolt-on dimension.
Abstract Objectives To validate outcomes of presently available chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models against results of two large COPD trials—the 3-year TOwards a ...Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) trial and the 4-year Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT) trial. Methods Participating COPD modeling groups simulated the outcomes for the placebo-treated groups of the TORCH and UPLIFT trials using baseline characteristics of the trial populations as input. Groups then simulated treatment effectiveness by using relative reductions in annual decline in lung function and exacerbation frequency observed in the most intensively treated group compared with placebo as input for the models. Main outcomes were (change in) total/severe exacerbations and mortality. Furthermore, the absolute differences in total exacerbations and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to approximate the cost per exacerbation avoided and the cost per QALY gained. Result Of the six participating models, three models reported higher total exacerbation rates than observed in the TORCH trial (1.13/patient-year) (models: 1.22–1.48). Four models reported higher rates than observed in the UPLIFT trial (0.85/patient-year) (models: 1.13–1.52). Two models reported higher mortality rates than in the TORCH trial (15.2%) (models: 20.0% and 30.6%) and the UPLIFT trial (16.3%) (models: 24.8% and 36.0%), whereas one model reported lower rates (9.8% and 12.1%, respectively). Simulation of treatment effectiveness showed that the absolute reduction in total exacerbations, the gain in QALYs, and the cost-effectiveness ratios did not differ from the trials, except for one model. Conclusions Although most of the participating COPD cost-effectiveness models reported higher total exacerbation rates than observed in the trials, estimates of the absolute treatment effect and cost-effectiveness ratios do not seem different from the trials in most models.
Abstract Objectives To compare different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models with respect to structure and input parameters and to cross-validate the models by ...running the same hypothetical treatment scenarios. Methods COPD modeling groups simulated four hypothetical interventions with their model and compared the results with a reference scenario of no intervention. The four interventions modeled assumed 1) 20% reduction in decline in lung function, 2) 25% reduction in exacerbation frequency, 3) 10% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 4) all these effects combined. The interventions were simulated for a 5-year and lifetime horizon with standardization, if possible, for sex, age, COPD severity, smoking status, exacerbation frequencies, mortality due to other causes, utilities, costs, and discount rates. Furthermore, uncertainty around the outcomes of intervention four was compared. Results Seven out of nine contacted COPD modeling groups agreed to participate. The 5-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the most comprehensive intervention, intervention four, was €17,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for two models, €25,000 to €28,000/QALY for three models, and €47,000/QALY for the remaining two models. Differences in the ICERs could mainly be explained by differences in input values for disease progression, exacerbation-related mortality, and all-cause mortality, with high input values resulting in low ICERs and vice versa. Lifetime results were mainly affected by the input values for mortality. The probability of intervention four to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay value of €50,000/QALY was 90% to 100% for five models and about 70% and 50% for the other two models, respectively. Conclusions Mortality was the most important factor determining the differences in cost-effectiveness outcomes between models.
Limited data are available on effectiveness and costs of nutritional rehabilitation for patients with COPD in community care.
In a 2-year RCT, 199 COPD patients (FEV(1)%pred. 60% SD 16%) and impaired ...exercise capacity were randomized to the interdisciplinary community-based COPD management program (INTERCOM) or usual care (UC). A prescheduled subgroup analysis was performed on 39 of 199 patients who were muscle wasted and received UC or nutritional therapy in combination with exercise training. Body composition, muscle strength, and exercise capacity were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 months.
Between group differences after 4 months in favor of the intervention group: fat free mass index (FFMI 0.9 kg/m(2) SE = 0.2, P < .001), body mass index (BMI 1.0 kg/m(2) SE = 0.4, P = .009), maximum inspiratory mouth pressure (Pimax 1.4 kPa SE = 0.5, P = .011), quadriceps average power (QAP 13.1 Watt SE=5.8, P = .036), 6-minute walking distance (6MWD 27 m, SE = 11.5, P = .028), cycle endurance time (CET 525 seconds SE=195, P = .013), and peak exercise capacity (Wmax 12 Watt SE = 5, P = .036). Between group difference over 24 months in favor of the intervention group: Pimax 1.7 kPa (SE = 0.53, P = .004), QAP 19 Watt (SE = 6, P = .005), 6MWD 57 (SE = 19, P = .006), and CET 485 seconds (SE = 159, P = .006). After 4 months total costs were Euro 1501 higher in the intervention group than in the UC group (P < .05), but not significantly different after 24 months. Hospital admission costs were significantly lower in the intervention group -euro 4724 (95% CI -7704, -1734).
This study in muscle-wasted COPD patients with moderate airflow obstruction shows a prolonged positive response to nutritional support integrated in a community-based rehabilitation program.
Abstract Objectives To assess how suitable current chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models are to evaluate personalized treatment options for COPD by exploring the type ...of heterogeneity included in current models and by validating outcomes for subgroups of patients. Methods A consortium of COPD modeling groups completed three tasks. First, they reported all patient characteristics included in the model and provided the level of detail in which the input parameters were specified. Second, groups simulated disease progression, mortality, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs for hypothetical subgroups of patients that differed in terms of sex, age, smoking status, and lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second FEV1 % predicted). Finally, model outcomes for exacerbations and mortality for subgroups of patients were validated against published subgroup results of two large COPD trials. Results Nine COPD modeling groups participated. Most models included sex (seven), age (nine), smoking status (six), and FEV1 % predicted (nine), mainly to specify disease progression and mortality. Trial results showed higher exacerbation rates for women (found in one model), higher mortality rates for men (two models), lower mortality for younger patients (four models), and higher exacerbation and mortality rates in patients with severe COPD (four models). Conclusions Most currently available COPD cost-effectiveness models are able to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of personalized treatment on the basis of sex, age, smoking, and FEV1 % predicted. Treatment in COPD is, however, more likely to be personalized on the basis of clinical parameters. Two models include several clinical patient characteristics and are therefore most suitable to evaluate personalized treatment, although some important clinical parameters are still missing.
Abstract Objectives To develop a stochastic population model of disease progression in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that includes the effects of COPD exacerbations on health-related ...quality of life, costs, disease progression, and mortality and can be used to assess the effects of a wide range of interventions. Methods The model is a multistate Markov model with time varying transition rates specified by age, sex, smoking status, COPD disease severity, and/or exacerbation type. The model simulates annual changes in COPD prevalence due to COPD incidence, exacerbations, disease progression (annual decline in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second as percentage of the predicted value), and mortality. The main outcome variables are quality-adjusted life years, total exacerbations, and COPD-related health care costs. Exacerbation-related input parameters were based on quantitative meta-analysis. All important model parameters are entered into the model as probability distributions. To illustrate the potential use of the model, costs and effects were calculated for 3-year implementation of three different COPD interventions, one pharmacologic, one on smoking cessation, and one on pulmonary rehabilitation using a time horizon of 10 years for reporting outcomes. Results Compared with minimal treatment the cost/quality-adjusted life year was €8,300 for the pharmacologic intervention, €10,800 for the smoking cessation therapy, €8,700 for the combination of the pharmacologic intervention and the smoking cessation therapy, and €17,200 for the pulmonary rehabilitation program. The probability of the interventions to be cost-effective at a ceiling ratio of €20,000 varied from 58% to 100%. Conclusions The COPD model provides policy makers with information about the long-term costs and effects of interventions over the entire chain of care, from primary prevention to care for very severe COPD and includes uncertainty around the outcomes.
PDF
