Xenobiotic metabolizing enzyme gene polymorphisms predict response to lung volume reduction surgery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT), marked variability in response to lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) was observed. We sought to identify genetic differences which may explain some of this variability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In 203 subjects from the NETT Genetics Ancillary Study, four outcome measures were used to define response to LVRS at six months: modified BODE index, post-bronchodilator FEV₁, maximum work achieved on a cardiopulmonary exercise test, and University of California, San Diego shortness of breath questionnaire. Sixty-four single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genotyped in five genes previously shown to be associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease susceptibility, exercise capacity, or emphysema distribution.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A SNP upstream from glutathione S-transferase pi (<it>GSTP1</it>; p = 0.003) and a coding SNP in microsomal epoxide hydrolase (<it>EPHX1</it>; p = 0.02) were each associated with change in BODE score. These effects appeared to be strongest in patients in the non-upper lobe predominant, low exercise subgroup. A promoter SNP in <it>EPHX1 </it>was associated with change in BODE score (p = 0.008), with the strongest effects in patients with upper lobe predominant emphysema and low exercise capacity. One additional SNP in <it>GSTP1 </it>and three additional SNPs in <it>EPHX1 </it>were associated (p < 0.05) with additional LVRS outcomes. None of these SNP effects were seen in 166 patients randomized to medical therapy.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Genetic variants in <it>GSTP1 </it>and <it>EPHX1</it>, two genes encoding xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes, were predictive of response to LVRS. These polymorphisms may identify patients most likely to benefit from LVRS.</p

The cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease:a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic progressive lung disease characterised by non-reversible airflow obstruction. Exacerbations are a key cause of morbidity and mortality and place a considerable burden on health-care systems. While there is evidence that patients benefit from non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in hospital during an acute exacerbation, evidence supporting home use for more stable COPD patients is limited. In the UK, domiciliary NIV is considered on health economic grounds in patients after three hospital admissions for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV by systematic review and economic evaluation. Data sources: Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings and ongoing trial registries up to September 2014. Methods: Standard systematic review methods were used for identifying relevant clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies assessing NIV compared with usual care or comparing different types of NIV. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane guidelines and relevant economic checklists. Results for primary effectiveness outcomes (mortality, hospitalisations, exacerbations and quality of life) were presented, where possible, in forest plots. A speculative Markov decision model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care from a UK perspective for post-hospital and more stable populations separately. Results: Thirty-one controlled effectiveness studies were identified, which report a variety of outcomes. For stable patients, a modest volume of evidence found no benefit from domiciliary NIV for survival and some non-significant beneficial trends for hospitalisations and quality of life. For post-hospital patients, no benefit from NIV could be shown in terms of survival (from randomised controlled trials) and findings for hospital admissions were inconsistent and based on limited evidence. No conclusions could be drawn regarding potential benefit from different types of NIV. No cost-effectiveness studies of domiciliary NIV were identified. Economic modelling suggested that NIV may be cost-effective in a stable population at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £28,162), but this is associated with uncertainty. In the case of the post-hospital population, results for three separate base cases ranged from usual care dominating to NIV being cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £10,000 per QALY gained. All estimates were sensitive to effectiveness estimates, length of benefit from NIV (currently unknown) and some costs. Modelling suggested that reductions in the rate of hospital admissions per patient per year of 24% and 15% in the stable and post-hospital populations, respectively, are required for NIV to be cost-effective. Limitations: Evidence on key clinical outcomes remains limited, particularly quality-of-life and long-term (> 2 years) effects. Economic modelling should be viewed as speculative because of uncertainty around effect estimates, baseline risks, length of benefit of NIV and limited quality-of-life/utility data. Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV remains uncertain and the findings in this report are sensitive to emergent data. Further evidence is required to identify patients most likely to benefit from domiciliary NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting NIV and equipment settings. Future work recommendations: The results from this report will need to be re-examined in the light of any new trial results, particularly in terms of reducing the uncertainty in the economic model. Any new randomised controlled trials should consider including a sham non-invasive ventilation arm and/or a higher- and lower-pressure arm. Individual participant data analyses may help to determine whether or not there are any patient characteristics or equipment settings that are predictive of a benefit of NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting (and potentially discounting) NIV. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003286. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The health impacts of energy performance investments in low-income areas: a mixed-methods approach

The study found improvements in subjective well-being and a number of psychosocial outcomes, but there was no evidence of changes in physical health