Cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic disease associated with recurring exacerbations, which influence morbidity and mortality for the patient, while placing significant resource burdens on healthcare systems. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in a domiciliary setting can help prevent admissions, but the economic evidence to support NIV use is limited.MethodsA Markov model-based cost-utility analysis from the UK National Health Service perspective compared the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care for two end-stage COPD populations; a stable COPD population commencing treatment with no recent hospital admission; and a posthospital population starting treatment following admission to hospital for an exacerbation. Hospitalisation rates in patients receiving domiciliary NIV compared with usual care were derived from randomised controlled studies in a recent systematic review. Other model parameters were updated with recent evidence.ResultsAt the threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) domiciliary NIV is 99.9% likely cost-effective in a posthospital population, but unlikely (4%) to be cost-effective in stable populations. The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was £11 318/QALY gained in the posthospital population and £27 380/QALY gained in the stable population. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to longer-term readmission and mortality risks, and duration of benefit from NIV. Indeed, for stable Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) for stage 4 patients, or with higher mortality and exacerbation risks, ICERs were close to the £20 000/QALY threshold.ConclusionDomiciliary NIV is likely cost-effective for posthospitalised patients, with uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV in stable patients with COPD on which further research should focus.

Download Full-text

PP09 Cost-Effectiveness Of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Management

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s0266462319001855 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 35 (S1) ◽

pp. 38-39

Author(s):

Thomas Plunkett ◽

Paul Carty ◽

Michelle O'Neill ◽

Patricia Harrington ◽

Susan M Smith ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Usual Care ◽

Pulmonary Disease ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Chronic Obstructive ◽

Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

The Cost

IntroductionTo inform the development of a national clinical guideline for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), prioritized by the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee in Ireland, a systematic review was conducted to examine the cost-effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation programs (PRPs), outreach programs (OPs), and long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT), compared with usual care.MethodsMedline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and grey literature sources were searched up to 19 June 2018. Studies evaluating cost-effectiveness published post-2008 in English were included. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria and International Society for Pharmacoeconomics questionnaires were conducted independently by two reviewers. Costs were converted to 2017 Irish Euro using consumer price indices for health and purchasing power parity.ResultsFrom 8,661 articles identified, seven studies (one comparing both PRPs and LTOT) were included (PRPs: five; OPs: one; LTOT: two). PRP cost-utility analyses (n = 4) reported conflicting results due to considerable heterogeneity in program and study design, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging between EUR 12,391 and EUR 509,122 per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The remaining study investigated hospitalizations avoided and found outpatient and community-based PRPs to be dominant, while home-based PRP produced an ICER of EUR 1,913. OPs were found to be less costly, but also less effective. However, the results of the underpinning trial were neither statistically nor clinically significant. LTOT was found to be cost-effective, with ICERs of EUR 17,603 and EUR 26,936 per QALY gained.ConclusionsApplying a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 45,000 per QALY gained, this systematic review found that, compared with usual care, there is inconsistent but generally favorable evidence for PRPs, no clear evidence for the cost-effectiveness of OPs, and that LTOT is likely to be cost-effective. However, there was a lack of methodologically robust studies included in the review and most were not directly transferable to the Irish context.

Download Full-text