Long-term air humidification therapy is cost-effective for patients with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or bronchiectasis

Effectiveness, Adherence and Safety of Home High Flow Nasal Cannula in Chronic Respiratory Disease and Respiratory Insufficiency: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of home high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for the treatment of chronic respiratory failure in patients with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) has not been summarized. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness, adherence, and safety of HFNC in the long-term treatment of patients with chronic respiratory diseases and respiratory failure.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. PubMed, Web of science, and SCOPUS were search up to August 2023. Long-term HFNC studies (≥4 weeks) reporting dyspnea; exacerbations, hospitalizations; peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), comfort; patient experience, health-related quality of life or partial pressure of carbon dioxide (paCO2) were included.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles (701 patients) based on 10 studies were selected: randomized control trials (n=3), randomized crossover trials (n=2), crossover (n=3) and retrospective (n=2) studies. COPD (n=6), bronchiectasis (n=2), COPD/bronchiectasis (n=1) and ILD (n=1) were the underlined CRDs. HFNC reduced exacerbations when compared to usual care/home respiratory therapies (n=6). Quality of life outcomes were also in favor of HFNC in patients with COPD and bronchiectasis (n=6). HFNC had significant effects on hospitalizations, paCO2, and lung function. Adherence ranged from 5.2 to 8.6h/day (n=5). Three studies reported no events, 3 non-serious events and 2 no differences compared with other home respiratory therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

HFNC seems more effective than usual care or other home respiratory therapies in reducing exacerbations and improving quality of life in patients with COPD and bronchiectasis, while presenting good adherence and being safe. Its apparently superior effectiveness needs to be better studied in future real-world pragmatic trials.

A Real-Life Study of Combined Treatment with Long-Term Non-Invasive Ventilation and High Flow Nasal Cannula in Patients with End-Stage Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease

Patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often develop persistent hypoxic or hypercapnic respiratory failure, or a combination of both. Ventilatory support, in terms of a long-term high-flow nasal cannula (LT-HFNC) and long-term non-invasive ventilation (LT-NIV), may be indicated. Often, clinicians choose either one or the other. This paper explores combined treatment with LT-HFNC and LT-NIV in a real-life setting. In total, 33 patients with COPD and persistent respiratory failure were included in this study. Of those, 17 were initiated on LT-HFNC and used it for 595 (374) days and 16 were initiated on LT-NIV and used it for 558 (479) days. On average, patients used respiratory support continuously for 908 (586) days. Baseline characteristics were comparable, apart from PaCO₂ at first ventilatory support initiation (LT-HFNC/LT-NIV 7.1 (1.1) kPa/8.8 (0.9) kPa respectively (p = 0.002)). Both groups experienced a reduction in hospitalizations in the first twelve months after treatment initiation, compared to the twelve months before (LT-HFNC p = 0.022 and LT-NIV p = 0.014). In total, 25% of LT-NIV patients stopped treatment after HFNC initiation due to intolerance and 59% stopped LT-HFNC treatment 126 (36) days after LT-NIV initiation as monotherapy was sufficient. In 44% of these patients, LT-HFNC was re-initiated at the end of life. At the time of analysis, 70% of patients had died. In the last three months of life, patients stopped using LT-NIV, whereas 91% used LT-HFNC. In conclusion, the combined use of LT-NIV and LT-HFNC reduced hospitalizations in patients with COPD and persistent respiratory failure. The study indicates that LT-HFNC is well tolerated, and better tolerated than LT-NIV at the very end stages of COPD.

Cost-Effectiveness of Humidified High-Flow Therapy (HHFT) for COPD Patients on Long-Term Oxygen Therapy

Purpose

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of mortality, and is associated with significant respiratory impairment, decreased quality of life, and high health care costs. Recent evidence indicates significant clinical benefit results from adding humidified high-flow therapy (HHFT) to standard long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) as a home-based therapy in persons with severe COPD. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding HHFT to standard treatment of COPD patients using LTOT with US healthcare cost estimates.

Patients and Methods

A Markov state-transition model was developed using data from a prospective clinical trial of adding HHFT to standard therapy for persons with severe COPD using LTOT. The analysis was conducted from the US health care system perspective using a 5-year time horizon and 3% discount rate. QALYs and downstream healthcare costs were modeled. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine the impact of input parameters on the incremental net monetary benefit (NMB).

Results

Incremental QALYs accrued were 0.058 (2.047 vs 1.989 QALYs for HHFT and standard therapy groups respectively). Incremental total costs were -$3939 ($47,516 vs $51,455 for HHFT and standard therapy groups respectively). Thus, HHFT was the dominant treatment in the analysis, resulting on both better health and lower total costs. Varying utility and cost inputs individually never resulted in NMB approaching 0. Probabilistic analyses indicate that HHFT is cost-effective in 84% of simulations.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that the reductions in acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs) that result from adding HHFT for persons with COPD on LTOT will produce both health benefit (QALYs) and cost savings. Cost savings occur because the HHFT device costs are more than offset by reductions in costly COPD exacerbations. Health care systems and payors can benefit from wider implementation of HHFT with existing treatments.

The Danish respiratory society guideline for long-term high flow nasal cannula treatment, with or without supplementary oxygen

Introduction

Long-term High Flow Nasal Cannula (LT-HFNC), defined as High Flow Nasal Cannula treatment provided to patients with chronic pulmonary conditions during stable phases, has emerged as a home treatment in different categories of patients with chronic lung diseases in recent years.

Methods

This paper summarizes the physiological effects of LT-HFNC and evaluates the clinical knowledge to date about treatment in patients with chronic obstructive lung disease, interstitial lung disease and bronchiectasis. The guideline is translated and summarized in this paper and presented unabridged as an appendix to the paper.

Results

The paper describes the working process behind the Danish Respiratory Society's National guideline for treatment of stable disease, which has been written to support clinicians in both evidence-based decision making and practical issues concerning the treatment.

Long-Term Domiciliary High-Flow Nasal Therapy in Patients with Bronchiectasis: A Preliminary Retrospective Observational Case-Control Study

High-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) provides several pathophysiological benefits in chronic respiratory disorders. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of long-term HFNT in patients with bronchiectasis (BE).

METHODS

This is a retrospective bicentric case-control study of outpatients with BE on optimized medical treatment with a severe exacerbation requiring hospitalization in the previous year. Patients on long-term home HFNT (cases) and patients on optimized medical treatment alone (controls) were matched by age, sex, bronchiectasis severity index, and exacerbations in the previous year. Data on BE exacerbations, hospitalizations/year, mucus features, respiratory symptoms, and pulmonary function were collected. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the exacerbation rates at 12 months between groups.

RESULTS

20 patients in the HFNT group and 20 controls were included. A significant reduction in exacerbations [-1.9 (-2.8 to -0.9), p = 0.0005] and hospitalizations [-0.7 (-1.1 to -0.3), p = 0.0006] was found in the HFNT group vs controls. A slight improvement in pulmonary function [FEV₁% +6,1% (+1% to +11.3%) (p = 0.0219), FVC% +4.6% (+0.8% to +8.3%) (p = 0.0188) and FEF_25-75% +13.4 (+11 to +15.9) (p = 0.0189) was also found in the HFNT group compared to controls.

CONCLUSIONS

In this preliminary study, long-term domiciliary HFNT improved the clinical course of patients with BE.

Hospital Cost Savings for Sequential COPD Patients Receiving Domiciliary Nasal High Flow Therapy

Purpose

To estimate the 5-year budget impact to Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) hospitals of domiciliary nasal high flow (NHF) therapy to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who require long term oxygen therapy.

Methods

Hospital admission counts along with length of stay were obtained from hospital records of 200 COPD patients enrolled in a 12-month randomized clinical trial of NHF in Denmark, both over a 12-month baseline and then in the study period while on randomized treatment (control or NHF). NZ costings from similar COPD patients were estimated using data from Middlemore Hospital, Auckland and were applied to the Danish trial. The budget impact of NHF was estimated over the predicted 5-year lifetime of the device when used by patients sequentially.

Results

Fifty-five of 100 patients in the NHF group and 44 of 100 patients in the control group were admitted to hospital with a respiratory diagnosis during the baseline year. They had 108 admissions in the treatment group vs 89 in the control group, with 632 vs 438 days in hospital, and modeled annual costs of $9443 vs $6512 per patient, respectively. During the study period there were 38 vs 44 patients with 67 vs 80 admissions and 302 vs 526 days in hospital, at a modeled annual cost of $6961 vs $9565 per patient respectively. Taking into account capital expenditure and running costs, this resulted in cost savings of $5535 per patient-year (95% CI, -$36 to -$11,034). With 90% usage over the estimated five-year lifetime of the NHF device, amortized capital costs of $594 per year and annual running costs of $662, we estimate a 5-year undiscounted cost saving per NHF device of $18,626 ($16,934 when discounted to net present value at 5% per annum). There would still be annual cost savings over a wide range of assumptions.

Conclusion

Domiciliary NHF therapy for patients with severe COPD has the potential to provide substantial hospital cost savings over the five-year lifetime of the NHF device.

The effect of domiciliary high flow nasal cannula treatment on dyspnea and walking distance in patients with interstitial lung disease - A pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Interstitial Lung Diseases (ILD) affect the lung parenchyma and are often complicated by respiratory failure (RF) and impaired physical activity. High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) has proved effective in other disease entities with RF. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of domiciliary HFNC in ILD on dyspnea and walking distance.

METHODS

A 6 weeks cross-over study with domiciliary HFNC-treatment/6 weeks' observation in ILD-patients requiring ambulatory oxygen therapy or with newly prescribed (within 12 months) long term oxygen therapy. Patients were advised to use HFNC 8 h/day, recommended night-time use. Body phletysmography; 6-min walk test (6MWT) including BORG-score, oxygen saturation (SO2) at start, minimum SO2 and time to recovery after 6MWT; arterial blood gasses; modified Medical Research Council (mMRC)-score; quality of life, by the St George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and QoS, by the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) were investigated at baseline; six weeks and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

10 patients were included; one later withdrew consent. Patients used HFNC between 8-<1 h/day. There were no differences in lung function; blood gasses; SGRQ or RCSQ over the observational period). Walking distance improved significantly (393-441 m p = 0.049) as did time to recovery (3.4-2-2 min, p = 0.001). When correcting for HFNC use (hours/day) significant improvement was also seen in mMRC-score (p = 0.035) and minimum saturation during 6MWT (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Despite a very heterogenous group and no effect on quality of life and -sleep, the study indicates an improvement in dyspnea and physical ability of HFNC in ILD patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Domiciliary High Flow Nasal Cannula Treatment in COPD Patients with Chronic Respiratory Failure

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of long-term domiciliary high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) treatment in COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A cohort of 200 COPD patients were equally randomized into usual care ± HFNC and followed for 12 months. The outcome of the analysis was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and the analysis was conducted from a healthcare sector perspective. Data on the patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL), gathered throughout the trial using the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), was converted into EQ-5D-3L health state utility values. Costs were estimated using Danish registers and valued in British pounds (£) at price level 2019. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the results.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean difference in QALYs between the HFNC group and the control group was 0.059 (95% CI: 0.017; 0.101), and the adjusted mean difference in total costs was £212 (95% CI: -1572; 1995). The analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3605 per QALY gained. At threshold values of £20.000-30.000 per QALY gained, the intervention had an 83-92% probability of being cost-effective. The scenario analyses all revealed ICERs below the set threshold value and demonstrated the robustness of the main result.

CONCLUSION

This is the first cost-effectiveness study on domiciliary HFNC in Europe. The findings demonstrate that long-term domiciliary HFNC treatment is very likely to be a cost-effective addition to usual care for COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure. The results must be interpreted in light of the uncertainty associated with the indirect estimation of health state utilities.

Can cost-effectiveness results be combined into a coherent league table? Case study from one high-income country

BACKGROUND

Doubts exist around the value of compiling league tables for cost-effectiveness results for health interventions, primarily due to methods differences. We aimed to determine if a reasonably coherent league table could be compiled using published studies for one high-income country: New Zealand (NZ).

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted to identify NZ-relevant studies published in the peer-reviewed journal literature between 1 January 2010 and 8 October 2017. Only studies with the following metrics were included: cost per quality-adjusted life-year or disability-adjusted life-year or life-year (QALY/DALY/LY). Key study features were abstracted and a summary league table produced which classified the studies in terms of cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

A total of 21 cost-effectiveness studies which met the inclusion criteria were identified. There were some large methodological differences between the studies, particularly in the time horizon (1 year to lifetime) but also discount rates (range 0 to 10%). Nevertheless, we were able to group the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) into general categories of being reported as cost-saving (19%), cost-effective (71%), and not cost-effective (10%). The median ICER (adjusted to 2017 NZ$) was ~ $5000 per QALY/DALY/LY (~US$3500). However, for some interventions, there is high uncertainty around the intervention effectiveness and declining adherence over time.

CONCLUSIONS

It seemed possible to produce a reasonably coherent league table for the ICER values from different studies (within broad groupings) in this high-income country. Most interventions were cost-effective and a fifth were cost-saving. Nevertheless, study methodologies did vary widely and researchers need to pay more attention to using standardised methods that allow their results to be included in future league tables.

Interventions for bronchiectasis: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease characterised by abnormal dilatation of the bronchi, and presents typically with a chronic productive cough (or chronic wet cough in children) and recurrent infective exacerbations. It significantly impacts daily activities and quality of life, and can lead to recurrent hospitalisations, severe lung function impairment, respiratory failure and even death.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the efficacy and safety of interventions for adults and children with bronchiectasis from Cochrane reviews.To identify gaps in the evidence base that will inform recommendations for new research and reviews, and to summarise information on reported outcomes and make recommendations for the reporting of standard outcomes in future trials and reviews.

METHODS

We included Cochrane reviews of non-cystic fibrosis (CF) bronchiectasis. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The search is current to 11 February 2015. We also identified trials that were potentially eligible for, but not currently included in, published reviews to make recommendations for new Cochrane reviews. We assessed the quality of included reviews using the AMSTAR criteria. We presented an evidence synthesis of data from reviews alongside an evidence map of clinical trials and guideline data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, lung function and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 reviews but extracted data from, and rated the quality of, only nine reviews that reported results for people with bronchiectasis alone. Of the reviews with no usable data, two reviews included studies with mixed clinical populations where data were not reported separately for people with bronchiectasis and 10 reviews did not contain any trials. Of the 40 studies included across the nine reviews, three (number of participants nine to 34) included children. The studies ranged from single session to year-long studies. Each review included from one to 11 trials and 28 (70%) trials in the overview included 40 or fewer participants. The total number of participants included in reviews ranged from 40 to 1040. The age range of adult participants was from 36 to 73 years and children ranged from six to 16 years. The proportion of male participants ranged from 21% to 72%. Where reported, mean baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranged from 1.17 L to 1.66 L and from 47% to 88% predicted. Most of the reviews had search dates older than two years.We have summarised the published evidence as outlined in Cochrane reviews, but it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions. There was inconclusive evidence on the use of long-term antibiotics and nebulised hypertonic saline for reducing exacerbation frequency and evidence that human deoxyribonuclease (RhDNase) increases exacerbation frequency. Improvements in lung function were reported for inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) though this was small and not clinically relevant. Evidence of benefit for hyperosmolar agents and mucolytics was inconclusive. There was limited evidence of improvements in quality of life with airway clearance techniques and physical therapy but evidence of benefit for hyperosmolar agents was inconclusive. Secondary outcomes were not clearly reported in all trials in the included reviews. Improvements in dyspnoea, wheeze and cough-free days were reported for small trials of ICS and LABA (long-acting beta2-agonsts)/ICS and cough reduction was also reported for a small bromhexine trial. Reduction in sputum production was reported for long-term antibiotics and airway clearance techniques but evidence of benefit for hyperosmolar agents was inconclusive.Adverse events were included as outcomes in seven reviews. The review of long-term (four weeks to one year) prophylactic courses of antibiotics reported significantly more cases of wheeze (Peto odd ratio (OR) 8.56, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.63 to 44.93), dyspnoea (12 versus three, P value = 0.01) and chest pain (seven versus zero, P value = 0.01) from the same trial (74 participants) but no differences in occurrence of diarrhoea, rash or number of withdrawals. In the review of mucolytics versus placebo, relevant outcomes were not reported for erdosteine comparisons and no significant adverse effects were reported for bromhexine, though adverse events were associated with RhDNase (OR 28.19, 95% CI 3.77 to 210.85, 1 study). Of the remaining five reviews, adverse events were not reported in the single trials included in the ICS review or the physical therapy review and the impact of adverse events in the single trial included in the inhaled LABA/ICS combination versus ICS review were unclear. The reviews of short-term courses of antibiotics and inhaled hyperosmolar agents reported no significant differences in occurrence of adverse events. Fewer admissions to hospital were reported for long-term antibiotics, but this outcome was not reported in all reviews. No reviews reported differences in mortality, but again this outcome was not included in all reviews.We did not explicitly include antibiotic resistance as an outcome in the review, but this was unclear in the Cochrane reviews and evidence from other trials should be considered.We rated all reviews as high quality (AMSTAR), though opportunities for improved reporting (e.g. summary of findings and GRADE evaluation of the evidence) were identified for inclusion in future updates of the reviews. However, the majority of trials were not high quality and confidence in the effects of treatments, therefore, requires additional evidence from larger and more methodologically robust trials. We evaluated the overall coverage of important topics in bronchiectasis by mapping the quality of the current evidence base against published guidelines and identifying high priority areas for new research on; use of short-course and long-term antibiotics, ICS and oral corticosteroids, inhaled hyperosmolars, mucolytics, and use of airway clearance techniques.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview clearly points to significant opportunities for further research aimed at improving outcomes for people with bronchiectasis. We have highlighted important endpoints for studies (particularly exacerbations, quality of life and lung function), and areas of clinical practice that are in most urgent need of evidence-based support (including long-term antibiotics, ICSs and mucolytics).As the evidence is confined to small trials of short duration, it is not currently possible to assess the balance between the benefits and potential harms of treatments for bronchiectasis.

Utilities for asthma and COPD according to category of severity: a comprehensive literature review

BACKGROUND

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are incurable diseases that impact quality-of-life.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize original research articles that measured or utilized preference-based utilities or disutilities according to disease severity.

METHODS

Medline and Embase were searched from inception until the end of November 2014. Two reviewers independently searched the literature with differences settled through discussion. Data extracted included utility scores as determined in original research categorized according to disease severity as well as disutilities associated with exacerbations or comorbidities. Data were tabulated and analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

In total, 862 articles were identified, 790 were rejected, and 69 analyzed. There were 44 dealing with COPD and 25 with asthma. Average utilities determined by research were 0.828 ± 0.062, 0.765 ± 0.090, 0.711 ± 0.120, and 0.607 ± 0.120 for mild, moderate, severe, and very severe COPD, respectively. Utilities used in economic analyses were 0.866 ± 0.038, 0.770 ± 0.024, 0.739 ± 0.045, and 0.596 ± 0.075, respectively. Disutilities (annual) ranged from 0.002-0.378; major and minor exacerbations had respective disutilities of 0.287 and 0.108. For asthma patients, utilities were for 0.86 ± 0.32, 0.83 ± 0.065, and 0.74 ± 0.029, for mild, moderate, and severe disease, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilities have been summarized according to severity category of asthma and COPD. These values should be useful for researchers undertaking economic analyses of these diseases.