Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2012;12(7):1-64. Epub 2012 Mar 1.
In July 2010, the Medical Advisory Secretariat (MAS) began work on a Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) evidentiary framework, an evidence-based review of the literature surrounding treatment strategies for patients with COPD. This project emerged from a request by the Health System Strategy Division of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care that MAS provide them with an evidentiary platform on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of COPD interventions. After an initial review of health technology assessments and systematic reviews of COPD literature, and consultation with experts, MAS identified the following topics for analysis: vaccinations (influenza and pneumococcal), smoking cessation, multidisciplinary care, pulmonary rehabilitation, long-term oxygen therapy, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute and chronic respiratory failure, hospital-at-home for acute exacerbations of COPD, and telehealth (including telemonitoring and telephone support). Evidence-based analyses were prepared for each of these topics. For each technology, an economic analysis was also completed where appropriate. In addition, a review of the qualitative literature on patient, caregiver, and provider perspectives on living and dying with COPD was conducted, as were reviews of the qualitative literature on each of the technologies included in these analyses. The Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Mega-Analysis series is made up of the following reports, which can be publicly accessed at the MAS website at: http://www.hqontario.ca/en/mas/mas_ohtas_mn.html. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Evidentiary Framework. Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccinations for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Smoking Cessation for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Community-Based Multidisciplinary Care for Patients With Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Long-term Oxygen Therapy for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation for Chronic Respiratory Failure Patients With Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Hospital-at-Home Programs for Patients With Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Home Telehealth for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using an Ontario Policy Model. Experiences of Living and Dying With COPD: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of the Qualitative Empirical Literature. For more information on the qualitative review, please contact Mita Giacomini at: http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/ceb/faculty member_giacomini.htm. For more information on the economic analysis, please visit the PATH website: http://www.path-hta.ca/About-Us/Contact-Us.aspx. The Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) collaborative has produced an associated report on patient preference for mechanical ventilation. For more information, please visit the THETA website: http://theta.utoronto.ca/static/contact.
The objective of this health technology assessment was to determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
CONDITION AND TARGET POPULATION: Oxygen therapy is used in patients with COPD with hypoxemia, or very low blood oxygen levels, because they may have difficulty obtaining sufficient oxygen from inspired air.
Long-term oxygen therapy is extended use of oxygen. Oxygen therapy is delivered as a gas from an oxygen source. Different oxygen sources are: 1) oxygen concentrators, electrical units delivering oxygen converted from room air; 2) liquid oxygen systems, which deliver gaseous oxygen stored as liquid in a tank; and 3) oxygen cylinders, which contain compressed gaseous oxygen. All are available in portable versions. Oxygen is breathed in through a nasal cannula or through a mask covering the mouth and nose. The treating clinician determines the flow rate, duration of use, method of administration, and oxygen source according to individual patient needs. Two landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with COPD established the role of LTOT in COPD. Questions regarding the use of LTOT, however, still remain.
What is the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of LTOT compared with no LTOT in patients with COPD, who are stratified by severity of hypoxemia?
LITERATURE SEARCH: SEARCH STRATEGY: A literature search was performed on September 8, 2010 using OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and INAHTA for studies published from January 1, 2007 to September 8, 2010. A single clinical epidemiologist reviewed the abstracts, obtained full-text articles for studies meeting the eligibility criteria, and examined reference lists for additional relevant studies not identified through the literature search. A second clinical epidemiologist and then a group of epidemiologists reviewed articles with an unknown eligibility until consensus was established. INCLUSION CRITERIA: patients with mild, moderate, or severe hypoxemia; English-language articles published between January 1, 2007 and September 8, 2010; journal articles reporting on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, or safety for the comparison of interest; clearly described study design and methods; health technology assessments, systematic reviews, RCTs, or prospective cohort observational studies; any type of observational study for the evaluation of safety. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: no hypoxemia; non-English papers; animal or in vitro studies; case reports, case series, or case-case studies; studies comparing different oxygen therapy regimens; studies on nocturnal oxygen therapy; studies on short-burst, palliative, or ambulatory oxygen (supplemental oxygen during exercise or activities of daily living). OUTCOMES OF INTEREST: mortality/survival; hospitalizations; readmissions; forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV); forced vital capacity (FVC). FEV/FVC; pulmonary hypertension; arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO); arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO); end-exercise dyspnea score; endurance time; health-related quality of life. Note: Outcomes of interest were formulated according to existing studies, with arterial pressure of oxygen and carbon dioxide as surrogate outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on low quality of evidence, LTOT (~ 15 hours/day) decreases all-cause mortality in patients with COPD who have severe hypoxemia (PaO ~ 50 mm Hg) and heart failure. The effect for all-cause mortality had borderline statistical significance when the control group was no LTOT: one study. Based on low quality of evidence, there is no beneficial effect of LTOT on all-cause mortality at 3 and 7 years in patients with COPD who have mild-to-moderate hypoxemia (PaO ~ 59-65 mm Hg). Based on very low quality of evidence, there is some suggestion that LTOT may have a beneficial effect over time on FEV and PaCO in patients with COPD who have severe hypoxemia and heart failure: improved methods are needed. Based on very low quality of evidence, there is no beneficial effect of LTOT on lung function or exercise factors in patients with COPD who have mild-to-moderate hypoxemia, whether survivors or nonsurvivors are assessed. Based on low to very low quality of evidence, LTOT does not prevent readmissions in patients with COPD who have severe hypoxemia. Limited data suggest LTOT increases the risk of hospitalizations. Limited work has been performed evaluating the safety of LTOT by severity of hypoxemia. Based on low to very low quality of evidence, LTOT may have a beneficial effect over time on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD who have severe hypoxemia. Limited work using disease-specific instruments has been performed. Ethical constraints of not providing LTOT to eligible patients with COPD prohibit future studies from examining LTOT outcomes in an ideal way.
2010年7月,医疗咨询秘书处(MAS)开始着手慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)证据框架项目,即对围绕COPD患者治疗策略的文献进行循证综述。该项目源于卫生与长期护理部卫生系统战略司的一项请求,即要求MAS为他们提供一个关于COPD干预措施有效性和成本效益的证据平台。在对COPD的卫生技术评估和文献系统综述进行初步审查,并咨询专家后,MAS确定了以下分析主题:疫苗接种(流感和肺炎球菌)、戒烟、多学科护理、肺康复、长期氧疗、急性和慢性呼吸衰竭的无创正压通气、COPD急性加重期的居家医院模式以及远程医疗(包括远程监测和电话支持)。针对这些主题中的每一个都进行了循证分析。对于每种技术,还在适当情况下完成了经济分析。此外,对关于患者、护理人员和提供者对COPD患者生存和死亡看法的定性文献进行了综述,同时也对这些分析中包含的每种技术的定性文献进行了综述。慢性阻塞性肺疾病综合分析系列由以下报告组成,可在MAS网站上公开获取:http://www.hqontario.ca/en/mas/mas_ohtas_mn.html。慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)证据框架。慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的流感和肺炎球菌疫苗接种:循证分析。慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的戒烟:循证分析。稳定期慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的社区多学科护理:循证分析。慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的肺康复:循证分析。慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的长期氧疗:循证分析。慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)急性呼吸衰竭患者的无创正压通气:循证分析。稳定期慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)慢性呼吸衰竭患者的无创正压通气:循证分析。慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)急性加重期患者的居家医院项目:循证分析。慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的家庭远程医疗:循证分析。使用安大略政策模型对慢性阻塞性肺疾病干预措施的成本效益分析。COPD患者生存和死亡的经验:定性实证文献的系统综述与综合分析。有关定性综述的更多信息,请通过以下方式联系米塔·贾科米尼:http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/ceb/faculty member_giacomini.htm。有关经济分析的更多信息,请访问PATH网站:http://www.path-hta.ca/About-Us/Contact-Us.aspx。多伦多卫生经济与技术评估(THETA)协作组编写了一份关于患者对机械通气偏好的相关报告。更多信息,请访问THETA网站:http://theta.utoronto.ca/static/contact。
本卫生技术评估的目的是确定长期氧疗(LTOT)对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)的有效性(成本效益)和安全性。
病情及目标人群:氧疗用于患有低氧血症(即血氧水平极低)的COPD患者,因为他们可能难以从吸入的空气中获取足够的氧气。
长期氧疗是指长时间使用氧气。氧气通过氧气源以气体形式输送。不同的氧气源有:1)氧气浓缩器,一种将室内空气转化为氧气的电气设备;2)液氧系统,将以液体形式储存于罐中的气态氧气进行输送;3)氧气瓶,装有压缩气态氧气。所有这些都有便携式版本。氧气通过鼻导管或覆盖口鼻的面罩吸入。治疗医生根据患者个体需求确定流速、使用时长、给药方法和氧气源。两项具有里程碑意义的COPD患者随机对照试验(RCT)确立了LTOT在COPD中的作用。然而,关于LTOT使用的问题仍然存在。
在按低氧血症严重程度分层的COPD患者中,与不进行LTOT相比,LTOT的有效性、成本效益和安全性如何?
文献检索:检索策略:于2010年9月8日使用OVID MEDLINE、MEDLINE在研及其他未索引引文、EMBASE、CINAHL、Cochrane图书馆和INAHTA对2007年1月1日至2010年9月8日发表的研究进行文献检索。由一名临床流行病学家审查摘要,获取符合入选标准的研究的全文文章,并查阅参考文献列表以查找通过文献检索未识别的其他相关研究。第二名临床流行病学家,然后是一组流行病学家审查入选资格不明的文章,直至达成共识。入选标准:轻度、中度或重度低氧血症患者;2007年1月1日至2010年9月8日发表的英文文章;报告感兴趣的比较的有效性、成本效益或安全性的期刊文章;明确描述的研究设计和方法;卫生技术评估、系统综述、RCT或前瞻性队列观察性研究;用于评估安全性的任何类型的观察性研究。排除标准:无低氧血症;非英文论文;动物或体外研究;病例报告、病例系列或病例对照研究;比较不同氧疗方案的研究;夜间氧疗研究;短疗程、姑息性或动态氧疗(运动或日常生活活动期间的补充氧气)研究。感兴趣的结局:死亡率/生存率;住院次数;再入院次数;一秒用力呼气量(FEV);用力肺活量(FVC)。FEV/FVC;肺动脉高压;动脉血氧分压(PaO);动脉血二氧化碳分压(PaCO);运动后呼吸困难评分;耐力时间;健康相关生活质量。注意:根据现有研究确定感兴趣的结局,以动脉血氧和二氧化碳压力作为替代结局。
结论:基于低质量证据,LTOT(每天约15小时)可降低患有严重低氧血症(PaO约50 mmHg)和心力衰竭的COPD患者全因死亡率。当对照组为不进行LTOT时,全因死亡率的影响具有边缘统计学意义:一项研究。基于低质量证据,LTOT对患有轻度至中度低氧血症(PaO约59 - 65 mmHg)的COPD患者在3年和7年时的全因死亡率无有益影响。基于极低质量证据,有一些迹象表明LTOT可能随着时间推移对患有严重低氧血症和心力衰竭的COPD患者的FEV和PaCO有有益影响:需要改进方法。基于极低质量证据,LTOT对患有轻度至中度低氧血症的COPD患者的肺功能或运动因素无有益影响,无论评估的是幸存者还是非幸存者。基于低至极低质量证据,LTOT不能预防患有严重低氧血症的COPD患者再入院。有限的数据表明LTOT会增加住院风险。针对低氧血症严重程度评估LTOT安全性的工作有限。基于低至极低质量证据,LTOT可能随着时间推移对患有严重低氧血症的COPD患者的健康相关生活质量有有益影响。使用疾病特异性工具的工作有限。不对符合条件的COPD患者提供LTOT的伦理限制禁止未来研究以理想方式检查LTOT结局。