Search

Background: Chronic 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. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV by systematic review and economic evaluation. Data sources: Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings and ongoing trial registries up to September 2014. Methods: Standard 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. Results: Thirty-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. Limitations: Evidence 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. Conclusions: The 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 recommendations: The 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 registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003286. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

BackgroundChronic migraine is a debilitating headache disorder that has significant impact on quality of life. Stimulation of peripheral nerves is increasingly being used to treat chronic refractory pain including headache disorders. This systematic review examines the effectiveness and adverse effects of occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) for chronic migraine.MethodsDatabases, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and clinical trial registers were searched to September 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), other controlled and uncontrolled observational studies and case series (n≥ 10) were eligible. RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model. Findings are presented in summary tables and forest plots.ResultsFive RCTs (total n=402) and seven case series (total n=115) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled results from three multicenter RCTs show that ONS was associated with a mean reduction of 2.59 days (95% CI 0.91 to 4.27, I2=0%) of prolonged, moderate to severe headache per month at 3 months compared with a sham control. Results for other outcomes generally favour ONS over sham controls but quantitative analysis was hampered by incomplete publication and reporting of trial data. Lead migration and infections are common and often require revision surgery. Open-label follow-up of RCTs and case series suggest long-term effectiveness can be maintained in some patients but evidence is limited.ConclusionsWhile the effectiveness of ONS compared to sham control has been shown in multiple RCTs, the average effect size is modest and may be exaggerated by bias as achieving effective blinding remains a methodological challenge. Further measures to reduce the risk of adverse events and revision surgery are needed.Systematic review registrationthis systematic review is an update and expanded work of part of a broader review registered with PROSPERO. Registration No. CRD42012002633.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen (O2) is widely recommended for patients with myocardial infarction yet a narrative review has suggested it may do more harm than good. Systematic reviews have concluded that there was insufficient evidence to know whether oxygen reduced, increased or had no effect on the heart ischaemia or infarct size. OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence from randomized controlled trials to establish whether routine use of inhaled oxygen in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) improves patient-centered outcomes, in particular pain and death. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES FOR THIS REVIEW: The following bibliographic databases were searched (to the end of February 2010): Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, CINAHL, Lilacs and PASCAL, British Library ZETOC, Web of Science ISI Proceedings. Experts were also contacted to identify any studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of people with suspected or proven AMI, less than 24 hours after onset, in which the intervention was inhaled oxygen (at normal pressure) compared to air and regardless of co-therapies provided these were the same in both arms of the trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies to see if they met the inclusion criteria and independently undertook the data extraction. The quality of studies and the risk of bias were assessed according to guidance in the Cochrane Handbook. The primary outcomes were death, pain and complications. The measure of effect used was the relative risk (RR). MAIN RESULTS: Three trials involving 387 patients were included and 14 deaths occurred. The pooled RR of death was 2.88 (95% CI 0.88 to 9.39) in an intention-to-treat analysis and 3.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 9.83) in patients with confirmed AMI. While suggestive of harm, the small number of deaths recorded meant that this could be a chance occurrence. Pain was measured by analgesic use. The pooled RR for the use of analgesics was 0.97 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.20). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no conclusive evidence from randomized controlled trials to support the routine use of inhaled oxygen in patients with acute AMI. A definitive randomized controlled trial is urgently required given the mismatch between trial evidence suggestive of possible harm from routine oxygen use and recommendations for its use in clinical practice guidelines.