用于治疗严重肺气肿的支气管内瓣膜

Nazia Darvesh, Qiukui Hao, Jennie Horton
{"title":"用于治疗严重肺气肿的支气管内瓣膜","authors":"Nazia Darvesh, Qiukui Hao, Jennie Horton","doi":"10.51731/cjht.2024.816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What Is the Issue? \n \nPeople with severe emphysema who do not experience relief with non-invasive therapies such as medication, physical activity, and smoking cessation may need advanced treatments. \nEndobronchial valves are an alternative therapy that may improve exercise capacity and quality of life, and are less invasive compared to lung reduction surgery or transplants. \n \nWhat Did We Do? \n \nA 2019 CADTH report summarized clinical effectiveness evidence for valves compared to standard care. CADTH sought to update this evidence with new clinical research and include information on cost-effectiveness, which was not part of the previous report. \nA research information specialist conducted a literature search of the peer-reviewed and grey literature with a search strategy focused on emphysema and endobronchial valves. The search was limited to English-language documents published since 2018. One reviewer screened articles for inclusion based on predefined criteria, critically appraised the included studies, and narratively summarized the findings. \n \nWhat Did We Find? \n \nWe did not find systematic reviews or health technology assessments published since 2018 that contained clinical evidence not already captured in the 2019 CADTH report. Two RCTs provide updated clinical evidence for endobronchial valves compared to standard care, and 1 RCT contains evidence on valves compared to lung surgery. \nThe evidence suggests that valves may improve lung function, breathing ability, and physical activity in middle-aged and older adults with emphysema compared to standard care; the effect on quality of life and safety is unclear. The previous CADTH report showed lung function, breathing ability, physical activity, and quality of life were favourable for valve treatment compared to standard care. \nThe previous CADTH report showed that valves resulted in harmful outcomes compared to standard care; however, in the current review, safety was difficult to assess due to poor reporting. \nWhen comparing valves to lung surgery, lung surgery may improve quality of life compared to valves; other outcomes did not favour one therapy over another. \nFor cost-effectiveness, valves may be favourable compared to standard medical care, while their cost-effectiveness compared to lung volume reduction surgery is unclear. \nOne study was conducted in Canada, and no studies were conducted in children and younger adults. \n \nWhat Does it Mean? \n \nEndobronchial valves are a potential therapy for people with severe emphysema with some favourable clinical and cost outcomes, but the evidence for their safety is unclear. \nDecision-makers may wish to consider the balance of favourable and harmful effects in existing evidence before more high-quality evidence in Canada, especially for safety, is available. \n","PeriodicalId":9437,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Health Technologies","volume":"38 13","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endobronchial Valves for the Management of Severe Emphysema\",\"authors\":\"Nazia Darvesh, Qiukui Hao, Jennie Horton\",\"doi\":\"10.51731/cjht.2024.816\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"What Is the Issue? \\n \\nPeople with severe emphysema who do not experience relief with non-invasive therapies such as medication, physical activity, and smoking cessation may need advanced treatments. \\nEndobronchial valves are an alternative therapy that may improve exercise capacity and quality of life, and are less invasive compared to lung reduction surgery or transplants. \\n \\nWhat Did We Do? \\n \\nA 2019 CADTH report summarized clinical effectiveness evidence for valves compared to standard care. CADTH sought to update this evidence with new clinical research and include information on cost-effectiveness, which was not part of the previous report. \\nA research information specialist conducted a literature search of the peer-reviewed and grey literature with a search strategy focused on emphysema and endobronchial valves. The search was limited to English-language documents published since 2018. One reviewer screened articles for inclusion based on predefined criteria, critically appraised the included studies, and narratively summarized the findings. \\n \\nWhat Did We Find? \\n \\nWe did not find systematic reviews or health technology assessments published since 2018 that contained clinical evidence not already captured in the 2019 CADTH report. Two RCTs provide updated clinical evidence for endobronchial valves compared to standard care, and 1 RCT contains evidence on valves compared to lung surgery. \\nThe evidence suggests that valves may improve lung function, breathing ability, and physical activity in middle-aged and older adults with emphysema compared to standard care; the effect on quality of life and safety is unclear. The previous CADTH report showed lung function, breathing ability, physical activity, and quality of life were favourable for valve treatment compared to standard care. \\nThe previous CADTH report showed that valves resulted in harmful outcomes compared to standard care; however, in the current review, safety was difficult to assess due to poor reporting. \\nWhen comparing valves to lung surgery, lung surgery may improve quality of life compared to valves; other outcomes did not favour one therapy over another. \\nFor cost-effectiveness, valves may be favourable compared to standard medical care, while their cost-effectiveness compared to lung volume reduction surgery is unclear. \\nOne study was conducted in Canada, and no studies were conducted in children and younger adults. \\n \\nWhat Does it Mean? \\n \\nEndobronchial valves are a potential therapy for people with severe emphysema with some favourable clinical and cost outcomes, but the evidence for their safety is unclear. \\nDecision-makers may wish to consider the balance of favourable and harmful effects in existing evidence before more high-quality evidence in Canada, especially for safety, is available. \\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":9437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Health Technologies\",\"volume\":\"38 13\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Health Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51731/cjht.2024.816\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Health Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51731/cjht.2024.816","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

问题出在哪里? 严重肺气肿患者在接受药物治疗、体育锻炼和戒烟等非侵入性疗法后,如果病情没有得到缓解,可能需要接受先进的治疗。支气管内瓣膜是一种可改善运动能力和生活质量的替代疗法,与肺缩小手术或移植手术相比,它的创伤更小。 我们做了什么? CADTH 2019 年的一份报告总结了瓣膜与标准治疗相比的临床有效性证据。CADTH 试图通过新的临床研究来更新这些证据,并纳入有关成本效益的信息,这在之前的报告中并不存在。研究信息专家对同行评议文献和灰色文献进行了文献检索,检索策略侧重于肺气肿和支气管内瓣膜。检索仅限于2018年以来发表的英文文献。一位审稿人根据预先定义的标准筛选纳入文章,对纳入的研究进行严格评估,并对研究结果进行叙述性总结。 我们发现了什么? 我们没有发现自 2018 年以来发表的系统综述或健康技术评估包含 2019 CADTH 报告中尚未收录的临床证据。两项 RCT 提供了支气管内瓣膜与标准护理相比的最新临床证据,1 项 RCT 包含瓣膜与肺部手术相比的证据。证据表明,与标准治疗相比,瓣膜可改善患有肺气肿的中老年人的肺功能、呼吸能力和体力活动;对生活质量和安全性的影响尚不清楚。CADTH 先前的报告显示,与标准治疗相比,瓣膜治疗可改善肺功能、呼吸能力、体力活动和生活质量。CADTH 先前的报告显示,与标准治疗相比,瓣膜治疗会导致有害的结果;但在当前的综述中,由于报告较少,安全性难以评估。在将瓣膜与肺部手术进行比较时,肺部手术与瓣膜相比可能会改善生活质量;其他结果并不偏向于一种疗法。在成本效益方面,瓣膜与标准医疗相比可能更有优势,而与肺容积缩小手术相比,其成本效益尚不明确。有一项研究是在加拿大进行的,没有针对儿童和年轻人的研究。 这意味着什么? 支气管内瓣膜是重度肺气肿患者的一种潜在疗法,具有一些有利的临床和成本结果,但其安全性的证据尚不明确。在加拿大获得更多高质量的证据(尤其是安全性方面的证据)之前,决策者可能希望考虑现有证据中有利影响和有害影响之间的平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Endobronchial Valves for the Management of Severe Emphysema
What Is the Issue? People with severe emphysema who do not experience relief with non-invasive therapies such as medication, physical activity, and smoking cessation may need advanced treatments. Endobronchial valves are an alternative therapy that may improve exercise capacity and quality of life, and are less invasive compared to lung reduction surgery or transplants. What Did We Do? A 2019 CADTH report summarized clinical effectiveness evidence for valves compared to standard care. CADTH sought to update this evidence with new clinical research and include information on cost-effectiveness, which was not part of the previous report. A research information specialist conducted a literature search of the peer-reviewed and grey literature with a search strategy focused on emphysema and endobronchial valves. The search was limited to English-language documents published since 2018. One reviewer screened articles for inclusion based on predefined criteria, critically appraised the included studies, and narratively summarized the findings. What Did We Find? We did not find systematic reviews or health technology assessments published since 2018 that contained clinical evidence not already captured in the 2019 CADTH report. Two RCTs provide updated clinical evidence for endobronchial valves compared to standard care, and 1 RCT contains evidence on valves compared to lung surgery. The evidence suggests that valves may improve lung function, breathing ability, and physical activity in middle-aged and older adults with emphysema compared to standard care; the effect on quality of life and safety is unclear. The previous CADTH report showed lung function, breathing ability, physical activity, and quality of life were favourable for valve treatment compared to standard care. The previous CADTH report showed that valves resulted in harmful outcomes compared to standard care; however, in the current review, safety was difficult to assess due to poor reporting. When comparing valves to lung surgery, lung surgery may improve quality of life compared to valves; other outcomes did not favour one therapy over another. For cost-effectiveness, valves may be favourable compared to standard medical care, while their cost-effectiveness compared to lung volume reduction surgery is unclear. One study was conducted in Canada, and no studies were conducted in children and younger adults. What Does it Mean? Endobronchial valves are a potential therapy for people with severe emphysema with some favourable clinical and cost outcomes, but the evidence for their safety is unclear. Decision-makers may wish to consider the balance of favourable and harmful effects in existing evidence before more high-quality evidence in Canada, especially for safety, is available.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Relugolix (Orgovyx) Nabilone for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain Newborn Screening for Congenital Cytomegalovirus in Canada 2023 Abstracts of the Canadian Association for Population Therapeutics The Development of a Model Validation Tool to Assist in the Conduct of Economic Evaluations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1