Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic disease associated with recurring exacerbations, which influence morbidity and mortality for the patient, while placing significant resource burdens on healthcare systems. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in a domiciliary setting can help prevent admissions, but the economic evidence to support NIV use is limited.
Methods: A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis from the UK National Health Service perspective compared the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care for two end-stage COPD populations; a stable COPD population commencing treatment with no recent hospital admission; and a posthospital population starting treatment following admission to hospital for an exacerbation. Hospitalisation rates in patients receiving domiciliary NIV compared with usual care were derived from randomised controlled studies in a recent systematic review. Other model parameters were updated with recent evidence.
Results: At the threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) domiciliary NIV is 99.9% likely cost-effective in a posthospital population, but unlikely (4%) to be cost-effective in stable populations. The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was £11 318/QALY gained in the posthospital population and £27 380/QALY gained in the stable population. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to longer-term readmission and mortality risks, and duration of benefit from NIV. Indeed, for stable Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) for stage 4 patients, or with higher mortality and exacerbation risks, ICERs were close to the £20 000/QALY threshold.
Conclusion: Domiciliary NIV is likely cost-effective for posthospitalised patients, with uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV in stable patients with COPD on which further research should focus.
Keywords: COPD epidemiology; COPD exacerbations; non invasive ventilation.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.