DiPALS: Diaphragm Pacing in patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis - a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disease resulting in death, usually from respiratory failure, within 2-3 years of symptom onset. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is a treatment that when given to patients in respiratory failure leads to improved survival and quality of life. Diaphragm pacing (DP), using the NeuRx/4(®) diaphragm pacing system (DPS)™ (Synapse Biomedical, Oberlin, OH, USA), is a new technique that may offer additional or alternative benefits to patients with ALS who are in respiratory failure. OBJECTIVE: The Diaphragm Pacing in patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (DiPALS) trial evaluated the effect of DP on survival over the study duration in patients with ALS with respiratory failure. DESIGN: The DiPALS trial was a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial incorporating health economic analyses and a qualitative longitudinal substudy. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants had a diagnosis of ALS (ALS laboratory-supported probable, clinically probable or clinically definite according to the World Federation of Neurology revised El Escorial criteria), had been stabilised on riluzole for 30 days, were aged ≥ 18 years and were in respiratory failure. We planned to recruit 108 patients from seven UK-based specialist ALS or respiratory centres. Allocation was performed using 1 : 1 non-deterministic minimisation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to either standard care (NIV alone) or standard care (NIV) plus DP using the NeuRX/4 DPS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause. Secondary outcomes were patient quality of life [assessed by European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, three levels (EQ-5D-3L), Short Form questionnaire-36 items and Sleep Apnoea Quality of Life Index questionnaire]; carer quality of life (EQ-5D-3L and Caregiver Burden Inventory); cost-utility analysis and health-care resource use; tolerability and adverse events. Acceptability and attitudes to DP were assessed in a qualitative substudy. RESULTS: In total, 74 participants were randomised into the trial and analysed, 37 participants to NIV plus pacing and 37 to standard care, before the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee advised initial suspension of recruitment (December 2013) and subsequent discontinuation of pacing (on safety grounds) in all patients (June 2014). Follow-up assessments continued until the planned end of the study in December 2014. The median survival (interquartile range) was 22.5 months (lower quartile 11.8 months; upper quartile not reached) in the NIV arm and 11.0 months (6.7 to 17.0 months) in the NIV plus pacing arm, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.27 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.25; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Diaphragmatic pacing should not be used as a routine treatment for patients with ALS in respiratory failure. FUTURE WORK: It may be that certain population subgroups benefit from DP. We are unable to explain the mechanism behind the excess mortality in the pacing arm, something the small trial size cannot help address. Future research should investigate the mechanism by which harm or benefit occurs further. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53817913. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 45. See the HTA programme website for further project information. Additional funding was provided by the Motor Neurone Disease Association of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

A multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of continuous positive airway pressure for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome in older people: PREDICT.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic and economic benefits of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) have been established in middle-aged people. In older people there is a lack of evidence. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical efficacy of CPAP in older people with OSAS and to establish its cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: A randomised, parallel, investigator-blinded multicentre trial with within-trial and model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-eight patients, aged ≥ 65 years with newly diagnosed OSAS [defined as oxygen desaturation index at ≥ 4% desaturation threshold level for > 7.5 events/hour and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score of ≥ 9] recruited from 14 hospital-based sleep services across the UK. INTERVENTIONS: CPAP with best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone. Autotitrating CPAP was initiated using standard clinical practice. BSC was structured advice on minimising sleepiness. COPRIMARY OUTCOMES: Subjective sleepiness at 3 months, as measured by the ESS (ESS mean score: months 3 and 4) and cost-effectiveness over 12 months, as measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) calculated using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and health-care resource use, information on which was collected monthly from patient diaries. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Subjective sleepiness at 12 months (ESS mean score: months 10, 11 and 12) and objective sleepiness, disease-specific and generic quality of life, mood, functionality, nocturia, mobility, accidents, cognitive function, cardiovascular risk factors and events at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-eight patients were randomised to CPAP (n = 140) or BSC (n = 138) over 27 months and 231 (83%) patients completed the trial. Baseline ESS score was similar in both groups [mean (standard deviation; SD) CPAP 11.5 (3.3), BSC 11.4 (4.2)]; groups were well balanced for other characteristics. The mean (SD) in ESS score at 3 months was -3.8 (0.4) in the CPAP group and -1.6 (0.3) in the BSC group. The adjusted treatment effect of CPAP compared with BSC was -2.1 points [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.0 to -1.3 points; p < 0.001]. At 12 months the effect was -2.0 points (95% CI -2.8 to -1.2 points; p < 0.001). The effect was greater in patients with increased CPAP use or higher baseline ESS score. The number of QALYs calculated using the EQ-5D was marginally (0.005) higher with CPAP than with BSC (95% CI -0.034 to 0.044). The average cost per patient was £1363 (95% CI £1121 to £1606) for those allocated to CPAP and £1389 (95% CI £1116 to £1662) for those allocated to BSC. On average, costs were lower in the CPAP group (mean -£35; 95% CI -£390 to £321). The probability that CPAP was cost-effective at thresholds conventionally used by the NHS (£20,000 per QALY gained) was 0.61. QALYs calculated using the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions were 0.018 higher in the CPAP group (95% CI 0.003 to 0.034 QALYs) and the probability that CPAP was cost-effective was 0.96. CPAP decreased objective sleepiness (p = 0.02), increased mobility (p = 0.03) and reduced total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p = 0.05, p = 0.04, respectively) at 3 months but not at 12 months. In the BSC group, there was a fall in systolic blood pressure of 3.7 mmHg at 12 months, which was not seen in the CPAP group (p = 0.04). Mood, functionality, nocturia, accidents, cognitive function and cardiovascular events were unchanged. There were no medically significant harms attributable to CPAP. CONCLUSION: In older people with OSAS, CPAP reduces sleepiness and is marginally more cost-effective than BSC over 12 months. Further work is required in the identification of potential biomarkers of sleepiness and those patients at increased risk of cognitive impairment. Early detection of which could be used to inform the clinician when in the disease cycle treatment is needed to avert central nervous system sequelae and to assist patients decision-making regarding treatment and compliance. Treatment adherence is also a challenge in clinical trials generally, and adherence to CPAP therapy in particular is a recognised concern in both research studies and clinical practice. Suggested research priorities would include a focus on optimisation of CPAP delivery or support and embracing the technological advances currently available. Finally, the improvements in quality of life in trials do not appear to reflect the dramatic changes noted in clinical practice. There should be a greater focus on patient centred outcomes which would better capture the symptomatic improvement with CPAP treatment and translate these improvements into outcomes which could be used in health economic analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90464927. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Continuous positive airway pressure in older people with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (PREDICT): a 12-month, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic and economic benefits of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) syndrome have been established in middle-aged people; however, the benefits in older people are unknown. This trial was designed to address this evidence gap. METHODS: This 12-month, multicentre, randomised trial enrolled patients across 14 National Health Service sleep centres in the UK. Consecutive patients aged 65 years or older with newly diagnosed OSA syndrome were eligible to join the trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) into parallel groups to receive either CPAP with best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone for 12 months. Randomisation was done by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit with computer-generated randomisation. The main investigator at each centre was masked to the trial randomisation. Coprimary endpoints were Epworth sleepiness score (ESS) at 3 months and cost-effectiveness over the 12-month trial period. Secondary outcomes were subjective sleepiness at 12 months, plus objective sleepiness, quality of life, mood, functionality, nocturia, mobility, accidents, cognitive function, and cardiovascular risk factors and events at 3 months and 12 months. The analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN90464927. FINDINGS: Between Feb 24, 2010, and May 30, 2012, 278 patients were randomly assigned to the trial, of whom 231 (83%) completed the trial. 140 patients were allocated to and received CPAP plus BSC and 138 were allocated to and received BSC only. CPAP reduced ESS by 2·1 points (95% CI -3·0 to -1·3; p<0·0001) at 3 months for 124 (89%) of 140 patients compared with 124 (90%) of 138 patients given BSC, and by 2·0 points (-2·8 to -1·2; p<0·0001) at 12 months for 116 patients compared with 122 patients given BSC. The effect was greater in patients with higher CPAP usage or higher baseline ESS. Quality-adjusted life-years were similar between the groups (treatment effect 0·01 (95% CI -0·03 to 0·04; p=0·787) and health-care costs were marginally reduced with CPAP (-£35, -390 to 321; p=0·847). CPAP improved objective sleepiness (p=0·024), mobility (p=0·029), total cholesterol (p=0·048), and LDL cholesterol (p=0·042) at 3 months, but these were not sustained at 12 months. Measures of mood, functionality, nocturia, accidents, cognitive function, and cardiovascular events remained unchanged. Systolic blood pressure fell in the BSC group. 37 serious adverse events occurred in the CPAP group, and 22 in BSC group; all were independently classified as being unrelated to the trial and no significant harm was attributed to CPAP use. INTERPRETATION: In older people with OSA syndrome, CPAP reduces sleepiness and is marginally more cost effective over 12 months than is BSC alone. On the basis of these results, we recommend that CPAP treatment should be offered routinely to older patients with OSA syndrome. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment, NIHR Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit at the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust and Imperial College London.

Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure to manage obstructive sleep apnea in patients with type 2 diabetes in the U.K.

OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to manage obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) from the perspective of the U.K.'s National Health Service (NHS). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a case-control design, 150 CPAP-treated patients with OSA and T2D were randomly selected from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database (a nationally representative database of patients registered with general practitioners in the U.K.) and matched with 150 OSA and T2D patients from the same database who were not treated with CPAP. The total NHS cost and outcomes of patient management in both groups over 5 years and the cost-effectiveness of CPAP compared with no CPAP treatment were estimated. RESULTS: Using CPAP was associated with significantly lower blood pressure at 5 years and increasingly lower HbA1c levels over 5 consecutive years compared with untreated OSA patients. At 5 years, the HbA1c level in the CPAP-treated group was 8.2% (66.0 mmol/mol) vs. 12.1% (108.4 mmol/mol) in the control group (P < 0.03). Use of CPAP significantly increased patients' health status by 0.27 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient over 5 years (P < 0.001) and NHS management costs by £4,141 per patient over 5 years; the cost per QALY gained with CPAP was £15,337. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating treatment with CPAP in OSA patients with T2D leads to significantly lower blood pressure and better controlled diabetes and affords a cost-effective use of NHS resources. These observations have the potential for treatment modification if confirmed in a prospective study.

Protocol for diaphragm pacing in patients with respiratory muscle weakness due to motor neurone disease (DiPALS): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Motor neurone disease (MND) is a devastating illness which leads to muscle weakness and death, usually within 2-3 years of symptom onset. Respiratory insufficiency is a common cause of morbidity, particularly in later stages of MND and respiratory complications are the leading cause of mortality in MND patients. Non Invasive Ventilation (NIV) is the current standard therapy to manage respiratory insufficiency. Some MND patients however do not tolerate NIV due to a number of issues including mask interface problems and claustrophobia. In those that do tolerate NIV, eventually respiratory muscle weakness will progress to a point at which intermittent/overnight NIV is ineffective. The NeuRx RA/4 Diaphragm Pacing System was originally developed for patients with respiratory insufficiency and diaphragm paralysis secondary to stable high spinal cord injuries. The DiPALS study will assess the effect of diaphragm pacing (DP) when used to treat patients with MND and respiratory insufficiency. METHOD/DESIGN: 108 patients will be recruited to the study at 5 sites in the UK. Patients will be randomised to either receive NIV (current standard care) or receive DP in addition to NIV. Study participants will be required to complete outcome measures at 5 follow up time points (2, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months) plus an additional surgery and 1 week post operative visit for those in the DP group. 12 patients (and their carers) from the DP group will also be asked to complete 2 qualitative interviews. DISCUSSION: The primary objective of this trial will be to evaluate the effect of Diaphragm Pacing (DP) on survival over the study duration in patients with MND with respiratory muscle weakness. The project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (project number 09/55/33) and the Motor Neurone Disease Association and the Henry Smith Charity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN53817913. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Cost-effectiveness of oral appliances in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea.

PURPOSE: Oral appliances (OA) are commonly prescribed for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (OSAH), but there is limited evidence on their cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model was designed to simulate the costs and benefits of treatment of OSAH with OA or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) based on their effects on quality of life, motor vehicle crashes, and cardiovascular effects. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of costs per one quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained 5 years after treatment. RESULTS: Compared with no treatment, OA results in $268 higher costs and an incremental QALY of 0.0899 per patient (ICER = $2,984/QALY). Compared with OA, CPAP resulted in $1,917 more costs and 0.0696 additional QALYs (ICER = $27,540/QALY). For the most part in the sensitivity analyses, CPAP remained cost-effective compared to OA, and OA remained cost-effective with respect to no treatment in almost all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: OAs are less economically attractive than CPAP but remain a cost-effective treatment for patients who are unwilling or unable to adhere to CPAP therapy.

An economic analysis of continuous positive airway pressure for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: An important option for the medical treatment of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) during sleep. This study reports on the cost-effectiveness of CPAP compared with dental devices and lifestyle advice. The work was commissioned by the NHS HTA Programme to inform the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence's (NICE) appraisal of CPAP. METHODS: A Markov model compared the interventions over the expected patient lifetime. The primary measure of cost-effectiveness was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The QALY incorporated the impact of treatments on daytime sleepiness, blood pressure and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RESULTS: On average, CPAP was associated with higher costs and QALYs compared with dental devices or lifestyle advice. In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CPAP compared with dental devices was around 4,000 pounds per QALY (2005--06 prices). The probability that CPAP is more cost-effective than dental devices or lifestyle advice at a threshold value of 20,000 pounds per QALY was 0.78 for men and 0.80 for women. Several sensitivity analyses were undertaken and it was found that the ICER for CPAP consistently fell below 20,000 pounds per QALY gained, apart from in a subgroup with mild disease. CONCLUSIONS: The model suggests that CPAP is cost-effective compared with dental devices and lifestyle advice for adults with moderate or severe symptomatic OSAHS at the cost-effectiveness thresholds used by NICE. This finding is reflected in the NICE guidance.