Endobronchial Valve for Emphysema PalliatioN Trial (VENT) Cost-effectiveness Sub-Study

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00137956

Recruitment Status : Terminated

First Posted : August 30, 2005

Last Update Posted : August 18, 2009

Sponsor:

Information provided by:

Emphasys Medical

Study Description

Brief Summary:

The purpose of the VENT Cost-Effectiveness Sub-Study is to gather healthcare utilization and quality of life information on patients enrolled in the VENT study in order to analyze the relative cost-effectiveness of the endobronchial valve implant procedure.

Condition or disease	Intervention/treatment	Phase
Emphysema Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease	Device: Emphasys Endobronchial Valve (EBV) Device and Procedure	Phase 3

Detailed Description:

Therapeutic interventions in health care require the use of resources. Since these resources are limited, it is important for clinical decision-makers to have economic information in addition to safety and efficacy data. In the economic environment of health care today, the incremental costs for a new therapeutic intervention must be offset by the value associated with better outcomes such as improved health and health-related quality of life and/or lower health care utilization costs over time.

Questions about the cost and effectiveness of medical care have generated considerable attention in medical outcomes research. In 1993, the Department of Health and Human Services appointed a multi-disciplinary group to recommend standards for the evaluation of health care. The panel's report suggested that standardized outcomes analyses be conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of medical care. These analyses require preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Such measures are needed in order to adjust survival time for health-related quality of life.

Study Design

Layout table for study information

Study Type :	Interventional (Clinical Trial)
Enrollment :	270 participants
Allocation:	Randomized
Intervention Model:	Parallel Assignment
Masking:	None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose:	Treatment
Official Title:	Endobronchial Valve for Emphysema PalliatioN Trial (VENT) Cost-effectiveness Sub-Study
Study Start Date :	December 2004

Resource links provided by the National Library of Medicine

MedlinePlus related topics: Emphysema

U.S. FDA Resources

Arms and Interventions

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures :

The cost-effectiveness ratio in the treatment group as compared to the control group at 180 days

Secondary Outcome Measures :

The cost-effectiveness ratio in the treatment group of the study will be compared to established therapies and standards.

Eligibility Criteria

Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.

Layout table for eligibility information

Ages Eligible for Study:	40 Years to 75 Years (Adult, Older Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:	All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:	No

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

Diagnosed by high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) with eligible heterogeneous disease distribution
Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) < 45% predicted
Total lung capacity (TLC) > 100% predicted
Residual volume (RV) > 150% predicted
Post rehabilitation 6 minute walk test > 140m
Non-smoking for 4 months

Exclusion Criteria:

Prior lung transplant, lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), median sternotomy, bullectomy or lobectomy
History of recurrent respiratory infections
Evidence of large bullae (> 30% of either lung) in a non-target lobe
FEV1 < 15% predicted
Diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) < 20% predicted

Contacts and Locations

Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00137956

Sponsors and Collaborators

Emphasys Medical

Investigators

Layout table for investigator information

Principal Investigator:	Robert Kaplan, PhD	UCLA School of Public Health, UCSD Health Outcomes Assessment Program (HOAP)

More Information

Publications:

Gold M, Franks P, Erickson P. Assessing the health of the nation. The predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health. Med Care. 1996 Feb;34(2):163-77.

Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995 Jun;7(6):490-502. Review.

Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 Nov;18(5):419-23.

Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995 Jun;7(6):503-20. Review.

Ware JE Jr, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):903-12.

Ramsey SD, Sullivan SD, Kaplan RM, Wood DE, Chiang YP, Wagner JL. Economic analysis of lung volume reduction surgery as part of the National Emphysema Treatment Trial. NETT Research Group. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001 Mar;71(3):995-1002.

Ramsey SD, Berry K, Etzioni R, Kaplan RM, Sullivan SD, Wood DE; National Emphysema Treatment Trial Research Group. Cost effectiveness of lung-volume-reduction surgery for patients with severe emphysema. N Engl J Med. 2003 May 22;348(21):2092-102. Epub 2003 May 20.

Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Within-trial cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention or metformin for the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003 Sep;26(9):2518-23.

Kaplan RM. Value judgment in the Oregon Medicaid experiment. Med Care. 1994 Oct;32(10):975-88.

Sieber WJ, David KM, Adams JE, Kaplan RM, Ganiats TG. Assessing the impact of migraine on health-related quality of life: An additional use of the quality of well-being scale-self-administered. Headache. 2000 Sep;40(8):662-71.

Kaplan RM, Atkins CJ, Timms R. Validity of a quality of well-being scale as an outcome measure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Chronic Dis. 1984;37(2):85-95.

Kaplan RM, Anderson JP, Patterson TL, McCutchan JA, Weinrich JD, Heaton RK, Atkinson JH, Thal L, Chandler J, Grant I. Validity of the Quality of Well-Being Scale for persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection. HNRC Group. HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center. Psychosom Med. 1995 Mar-Apr;57(2):138-47.

Orenstein DM, Kaplan RM. Measuring the quality of well-being in cystic fibrosis and lung transplantation. The importance of the area under the curve. Chest. 1991 Oct;100(4):1016-8.

Orenstein DM, Pattishall EN, Nixon PA, Ross EA, Kaplan RM. Quality of well-being before and after antibiotic treatment of pulmonary exacerbation in patients with cystic fibrosis. Chest. 1990 Nov;98(5):1081-4.

Kaplan RM, Hartwell SL, Wilson DK, Wallace JP. Effects of diet and exercise interventions on control and quality of life in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. J Gen Intern Med. 1987 Jul-Aug;2(4):220-8.

Ganiats TG, Palinkas LA, Kaplan RM. Comparison of Quality of Well-Being scale and Functional Status Index in patients with atrial fibrillation. Med Care. 1992 Oct;30(10):958-64.

Squier HC, Ries AL, Kaplan RM, Prewitt LM, Smith CM, Kriett JM, Jamieson SW. Quality of well-being predicts survival in lung transplantation candidates. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995 Dec;152(6 Pt 1):2032-6.

Bombardier C, Ware J, Russell IJ, Larson M, Chalmers A, Read JL. Auranofin therapy and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Results of a multicenter trial. Am J Med. 1986 Oct;81(4):565-78.

Kaplan RM. Quality of life assessment for cost/utility studies in cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 1993;19 Suppl A:85-96. Review.

Kaplan RM. Decisions about prostate cancer screening in managed care. Curr Opin Oncol. 1997 Sep;9(5):480-6. Review.

Patterson TL, Kaplan RM, Grant I, Semple SJ, Moscona S, Koch WL, Harris MJ, Jeste DV. Quality of well-being in late-life psychosis. Psychiatry Res. 1996 Jul 31;63(2-3):169-81.

Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996 Oct 16;276(15):1253-8. Review.

Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Daniels N, Weinstein MC. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in health and medicine. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996 Oct 9;276(14):1172-7. Review.

Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med. 1977 Mar 31;296(13):716-21.

Ries AL, Kaplan RM, Myers R, Prewitt LM. Maintenance after pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic lung disease: a randomized trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003 Mar 15;167(6):880-8. Epub 2002 Dec 27.

Layout table for additonal information

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:	NCT00137956
Other Study ID Numbers:	630-0005
First Posted:	August 30, 2005 Key Record Dates
Last Update Posted:	August 18, 2009
Last Verified:	August 2009

Keywords provided by Emphasys Medical:


Endobronchial Valve Endobronchial Valve ProcedureEBV EBV Procedure Endobronchial Lung Volume Reduction Lung Volume Reduction

Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Layout table for MeSH terms

Lung Diseases, Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Emphysema Emphysema	Lung Diseases Respiratory Tract Diseases Pathologic Processes

To Top