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).
Clinical Need: 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?
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.
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.
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
forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)
forced vital capacity (FVC)
arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)
arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2)
end-exercise dyspnea score
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.
Summary of Findings
Based on low quality of evidence, LTOT (~ 15 hours/day) decreases all-cause mortality in patients with COPD who have severe hypoxemia (PaO2 ~ 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 (PaO2 ~ 59-65 mm Hg)1
Based on very low quality of evidence, there is some suggestion that LTOT may have a beneficial effect over time on FEV1 and PaCO2 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.