4 Efficacy

4 Efficacy

This section describes efficacy outcomes from the published literature that the committee considered as part of the evidence about this procedure. For more detailed information on the evidence, see the interventional procedure overview.

4.1 A systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis included 5 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients (n=703) treated by duckbill-shaped endobronchial valve (EBV) insertion and 3 RCTs of patients (n=372) treated by umbrella-shaped EBV insertion, both compared with standard medical care (SMC). These 2 groups were analysed separately. In a meta-analysis of the 5 RCTs of duckbill EBV insertion compared with SMC, there was a statistically significant difference in 1% change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) in favour of duckbill EBV insertion (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 0.64, p<0.00001, I2=42). In 2 RCTs (n=143) from the same meta-analysis, a 2% increase in FEV1 was statistically significantly more frequent in patients treated by duckbill EBV than in those treated by SMC at 90‑day follow-up (SMD 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.11, p<0.00001, I2 = 0%). In the other 3 RCTs (n=560) from the same meta-analysis, a 2% increase in FEV1 was statistically significantly more frequent in patients treated by duckbill EBV than in those treated by SMC at 6‑month follow-up (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.58, p<0.00001, I2=41%). One RCT (n=73), which studied patients treated by the umbrella EBV, reported no statistically significant difference in FEV1 measurements at 3‑month follow-up (MD 0.90 litres, standard deviation [SD] 0.34) compared with patients having SMC (0.87 litres, SD 0.34, p=0.065). A second RCT (n=22) of the umbrella EBV reported statistically significantly improved FEV1 measurements in patients treated unilaterally (21.4%, SD 10.7%) but not in patients treated bilaterally (−3.1%, SD 15.0; MD 24.50%, 95% CI 13.61 to 35.39). The SR reported a statistically significantly larger change in FEV1 from baseline in patients with heterogeneous emphysema treated by duckbill EBV than in patients with homogeneous emphysema having the same treatment (MD 16.36%, 95% CI 9.02 to 23.71, p=0.00001, I2=0%, n=137, 2 RCTs).

4.2 In 3 RCTs (n=542) included in the SR there was a statistically significant increase in FEV1 from baseline in patients without collateral ventilation treated by duckbill EBV (MD 18.15%, 95% CI 11.81 to 24.49; p=0.000001, I2=0%). Three RCTs (n=542) reported no statistically significant increase in FEV1 after duckbill EBV treatment in patients with collateral ventilation (MD 2.48%, 95% CI −2.63 to 7.59, p=0.34, I2=0%). The SR reported that 2 RCTs showed statistically significant increases in FEV1 in patients with intact interlobar fissures as a surrogate for the absence of collateral ventilation (MD 17.80%, 95% CI 7.78 to 27.82, n=68; and MD 17.23%, 95% CI 8.10 to 26.36, n=93). In an RCT of 97 patients without collateral ventilation, an increase in FEV1 of greater than 12% from baseline was statistically significantly more frequent in patients treated by duckbill EBV (56% [36/64]) than in patients treated by SMC (3% [1/31], p<0.001) at 6‑month follow-up.

4.3 The SR reported a meta-analysis of 4 of the RCTs (n=379) of patients treated with duckbill EBV in whom the 6‑minute walking distance test was used to assess exercise capacity. The analysis showed a statistically significant increase in exercise capacity from baseline compared with SMC (MD 38.12 m, 95% CI 8.68 to 67.56, p=0.011, I2=78%).There was high variability between the studies. Three RCTs included in the SR reported a statistically significantly higher number of patients able to walk 26 m or more in the EBV-treated group compared with the SMC group. One RCT (n=321) found no statistically significant difference in the number of patients able to walk more than 26 m between the duckbill EBV and SMC groups (p=0.28). The SR reported a meta-analysis of 2 RCTs (n=316) that showed a statistically significant difference in exercise capacity from baseline favouring patients having SMC compared with patients treated by umbrella EBV (MD −19.54 m, 95% CI −37.11 to −1.98, p=0.029, I2=0%). In the RCT of 97 patients without collateral ventilation, an increase in 6‑minute walking distance of more than 26 m from baseline values was statistically significantly more frequent in patients treated by duckbill EBV (52% [33/63]) than in patients treated by SMC (13% [4/31], p<0.001) at 6‑month follow-up.

4.4 Five RCTs (n=695) included in the SR reported on quality of life measured by the St. George's respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ, 100 being the worst and 0 the best possible health status). In this analysis, patients treated by duckbill EBV had statistically significantly better quality of life than those having SMC (MD −7.29 units, 95% CI −11.12 to −3.45, p=0.0002, I2=67%) at a maximum follow-up of 12 months. The SR reported a meta-analysis of 2 RCTs (n=350) that showed no statistically significant difference in SGRQ score between patients treated by umbrella EBV and those having SMC (MD 2.64 units, 95% CI −0.28 to 5.56, p=0.076, I2=28%, high-quality evidence).

4.5 The specialist advisers listed the key efficacy outcomes to be lung function measurements, health status, exercise capacity, improvement in breathlessness, reduction in lung volume, and quality of life.

  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)