[Cost-effectiveness of lung volume reduction coil treatment in emphysema. STIC REVOLENS]

Do We Need to Assess Quality-of-Life with Both the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and the EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire in a Clinical Study with an Economic Component: Insights from the REVOLENS Study in Severe Emphysema

Introduction

The use of two quality-of-life questionnaires in a single clinical trial with an economic component can be challenging due to the associated workload in terms of data collection and an increased risk of missing data. The aim of our study was to determine whether the questionnaire chosen to measure health status, the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), could be administered on its own without adding the EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) for economic evaluation in emphysema studies.

Materials and Methods

Data were prospectively collected during the REVOLENS trial assessing endobronchial coil treatment in severe emphysema. To quantify the association between the two questionnaires, correlations between the EQ-5D and the SGRQ were first tested and the concordance was then studied in order to know whether the two questionnaires were interchangeable. Finally, the Starkie et al algorithm predicting EQ-5D utility values from the SGRQ was used on REVOLENS’s individual patient data. The Student’s t-test, correlation and concordance between EQ-5D individual value (from the REVOLENS study) and predicted value (from the Starkie et al algorithm) were studied to test this algorithm.

Results

Results showed a strong correlation but no concordance between the EQ-5D and the SGRQ, demonstrating that the two questionnaires are not interchangeable. Moreover, the algorithm predicting EQ-5D utilities from the SGRQ did not provide utility values comparable to those observed in the REVOLENS study. Indeed, our study demonstrated a strong correlation between predicted and individual EQ-5D values but no concordance.

Conclusion

The use of both the EQ-5D and the SGRQ in a clinical study with an economic component is justified. Based on our results, the SGRQ should not be used to obtain a utility score to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and conclude on the efficiency of an intervention in emphysema patients.

Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: History and progress

Emphysema is one of the pathological manifestations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which leads to lung hyperinflation, decreased activity of the diaphragm, decreased compliance of the lung, and difficulties in gas exchange. The clinical effect of pharmacological treatment for patients with severe emphysema is limited. In recent years, the emergence of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) has opened up the possibility for the management of COPD with severe emphysema. The article aims to summarize the development, procedure, and methodology of BLVR as well as its clinical efficacy.

Time for the Global Rollout of Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease remains one of the most common causes of morbidity and mortality globally. The disease is generally managed with pharmacotherapy, as well as guidance about smoking cessation and pulmonary rehabilitation. Endoscopic lung volume reduction (ELVR) has been proposed for the treatment of advanced emphysema, with the aim of obtaining the same clinical and functional advantages of surgical lung volume reduction whilst potentially reducing risks and costs. There is a growing body of evidence that certain well-defined sub-groups of patients with advanced emphysema may benefit from ELVR, provided the selection criteria are met and a systematic approach is followed. ELVR devices, particularly unidirectional valves and coils, are currently being rolled out to many countries outside of the U.S.A. and Europe, although very few centres currently have the capacity to correctly evaluate and provide ELVR to prospective candidates. The high cost of these interventions underpins the need for careful patient selection to best identify those who may or may not benefit from ELVR-related procedures. The aim of this review is to provide the practicing pulmonologist with an overview of the practical aspects and current evidence for the use of the various techniques available, and to suggest an evidence-based approach for the appropriate use of these devices, particularly in emerging markets, where there should be a drive to develop and equip key specialised ELVR units.

Treatment of emphysema using bronchoscopic lung volume reduction coil technology: an update on efficacy and safety

In the last decade several promising bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) treatments were developed and investigated. One of these treatments is BLVR treatment with coils. The advantage of this specific treatment is that it works independently of collateral flow, and also shows promise for patients with a more homogeneous emphysema disease distribution. Seven years ago, the very first patients were treated with BLVR coil treatment and currently large randomized, controlled trials are underway. The aim of this article is to review the available literature and provide an update on the current knowledge on the efficacy and safety of BLVR treatment with coils.

[Clinical and functional assessment in COPD: from case finding to follow-up]

A spirometry with bronchodilator test is needed for the diagnosis of COPD. It is recommended to detect COPD only in subjects with symptoms (dyspnoea and/or chronic cough and/or chronic sputum production) and a history of exposure to risk factors for the disease (tobacco smoking and/or occupational exposure). Measurement of peak expiratory flow to detect COPD, although simpler than conventional spirometry, allows only detection of the most severe cases of COPD. Specialist referral is often useful in the diagnosis of COPD, to establish the presence of incompletely reversible airflow obstruction, assess severity (using clinical questionnaires, plethysmography, exercise testing and arterial blood gases when indicated) and define future management. The level of FEV1 is associated with individualized assessment of symptoms and evaluation of exacerbation risk in the management strategy of stable COPD.

The lung volume reduction coil for the treatment of emphysema: a new therapy in development

Lung volume reduction (LVR) coil treatment is a novel therapy for patients with severe emphysema. In this bilateral bronchoscopic treatment, approximately 10 LVR coils per lobe are delivered under fluoroscopic guidance in two sequential procedures. The LVR coil reduces lung volume by compressing the most destructed areas of the lung parenchyma and restores the lung elastic recoil. Both patients with upper- and lower-lobe predominant emphysema as well as a homogeneous emphysema distribution can be treated. LVR coil treatment results in an improvement of pulmonary function, exercise tolerance and quality of life. The LVR-coil treatment has been evaluated in several European clinical trials since 2008 and received CE mark approval in 2010. Currently, two large multicenter randomized controlled trials are underway in Europe and North America to assess the efficacy and safety of the LVR-coil treatment at 12 months compared with usual care. In this review, we share our experience with the LVR-coil treatment.

Lung volume reduction coil treatment for patients with severe emphysema: a European multicentre trial

Background

The lung volume reduction (LVR) coil is a minimally invasive bronchoscopic nitinol device designed to reduce hyperinflation and improve elastic recoil in severe emphysema. We investigated the feasibility, safety and efficacy of LVR coil treatment in a prospective multicentre cohort trial in patients with severe emphysema.

Methods

Patients were treated in 11 centres. Safety was evaluated by recording all adverse events, efficacy by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) as primary endpoint, and pulmonary function testing, modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea score (mMRC) and 6-min walk distance (6MWD) up to 12 months after the final treatment.

Results

Sixty patients (60.9 ± 7.5 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) 30.2 ± 6.3% pred) were bronchoscopically treated with coils (55 bilateral, 5 unilateral), with a median of 10 (range 5–15) coils per lobe. Within 30 days post-treatment, seven chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations (6.1%), six pneumonias (5.2%), four pneumothoraces (3.5%) and one haemoptysis (0.9%) occurred as serious adverse events. At 6 and 12 months, respectively, ΔSGRQ was −12.1±12.9 and −11.1±13.3 points, Δ6MWD was +29.7±74.1 m and +51.4±76 m, ΔFEV₁ was +0.11±0.20 L and +0.11±0.30 L, and ΔRV (residual volume) was −0.65±0.90 L and −0.71±0.81 L (all p<0.01). Post hoc analyses showed significant responses for SGRQ, 6MWD and RV in patients with both heterogeneous and homogeneous emphysema.

Conclusions

LVR coil treatment results in significant clinical improvements in patients with severe emphysema, with a good safety profile and sustained results for up to 1 year.

Trial registration number:

NCT01328899.