title: 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.
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
  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.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
  2012:CRD42012003286.
authors.forename: Chirag
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Dave
authors.forename: Alice
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Turner
authors.forename: Janine
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Dretzke
authors.forename: Sue
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Bayliss
authors.forename: Deirdre
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: O'Brien
authors.forename: Sue
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Jowett
authors.affiliation: Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. d.j.moore@bham.ac.uk.
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Moore
mesh_terms: D000553:Ambulatory Care / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D006801:Humans; D006935:Hypercapnia / Q000191:economics / Q000628:therapy; D063087:Noninvasive Ventilation / Q000191:economics; D029424:Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive / Q000191:economics / Q000628:therapy*; D012131:Respiratory Insufficiency / Q000191:economics / Q000628:therapy*; D000078202:Systematic Reviews as Topic; D016896:Treatment Outcome