Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Systematic Reviews and BioMed Central.

Open Access Protocol

Protocol for a systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-hospital-based non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with stable end-stage COPD with hypercapnic respiratory failure

Chirag Dave1, Alice Turner12, Janine Dretzke3, Sue Bayliss3, Deirdre O’Brien4, Sue Jowett4 and David Moore3*

Author Affiliations

1 Heart of England Trust, Heartlands Hospital, Bordesley Green East, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK

2 Centre for Translational Inflammation Research, School of Clinical and Experimental, Medicine, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

3 Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

4 Health Economics, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

For all author emails, please log on.

Systematic Reviews 2014, 3:32  doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-32

Published: 27 March 2014

Abstract

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a significant public health burden. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is a method of supported breathing used as standard care for acutely unwell patients in hospital with COPD, but there is uncertainty around the potential benefits of using NIV in the treatment of stable patients in a non-hospital setting. This is a protocol for systematic reviews of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of NIV in this context, being undertaken in support of a model based economic evaluation.

Methods/Design

Standard systematic review methods aimed at minimising bias will be employed for study identification, selection and data extraction for both the clinical and economic systematic reviews. Bibliographic databases (for example MEDLINE, EMBASE) and ongoing trials registers will be searched from 1980 onwards. The search strategy will combine terms for the population with those for the intervention. Studies will be selected for review if the population includes adult patients with COPD and hypercapnic respiratory failure, however defined. Systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials and observational studies (with n >1) will be included, and quality assessment will be tailored to the different study designs. The primary outcome measures of interest are survival, quality of life, and healthcare utilisations (hospitalisation and Accident and Emergency attendances). Meta-analyses will be undertaken where clinical and methodological homogeneity exists, supported by predefined subgroup analyses where appropriate. A systematic review of the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of non-hospital NIV will be completed, and a model-based cost-utility analysis undertaken to determine the cost-effectiveness of non-hospital-based NIV compared with standard care.

Discussion

These reviews will attempt to clarify the clinical effectiveness of non-hospital NIV in COPD patients as well as the cost-effectiveness. The findings may indicate whether NIV in a non-hospital setting should be considered more routinely in this patient group, and what the likely cost implications will be.

PROSPERO registration

2012:CRD42012003286.

Keywords:
COPD; Non-hospital-based non-invasive ventilation; Hypercapnia; Clinical effectiveness; Cost-effectiveness; Systematic review; Meta-analysis