Cost-Effectiveness of a Specialized Breathlessness Service Versus Usual Care for Patients With Advanced Diseases.

OBJECTIVES: The Munich Breathlessness Service (MBS) significantly improved control of breathlessness measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) Mastery in a randomized controlled fast track trial with waitlist group design spanning 8 weeks in Germany. This study aimed to assess the within-trial cost-effectiveness of MBS from a societal perspective. METHODS: Data included generic (5-level version of EQ-5D) health-related quality of life and disease-specific CRQ Mastery. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated based on 5-level version of EQ-5D utilities valued with German time trade-off. Direct medical costs and productivity loss were calculated based on standardized unit costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-effectiveness-acceptance curves were calculated using adjusted mean differences (AMD) in costs (gamma-distributed model) and both effect parameters (Gaussian-distributed model) and performing 1000 simultaneous bootstrap replications. Potential gender differences were investigated in stratified analyses. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and April 2019, 183 eligible patients were enrolled. MBS intervention demonstrated significantly better effects regarding generic (AMD of QALY gains of 0.004, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0003 to 0.008) and disease-specific health-related quality of life at nonsignificantly higher costs (AMD of €605 [95% CI -1109 to 2550]). At the end of the intervention, the ICER was €152 433/QALY (95% CI -453 545 to 1 625 903) and €1548/CRQ Mastery point (95% CI -3093 to 10 168). Intervention costs were on average €357 (SD = 132). Gender-specific analyses displayed dominance for MBS in males and higher effects coupled with significantly higher costs in females. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show a high ICER for MBS. Considering dominance for MBS in males, implementing MBS on approval within the German health care system should be considered.

Effectiveness of a specialised breathlessness service for patients with advanced disease in Germany: a pragmatic fast-track randomised controlled trial (BreathEase).

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of the Munich Breathlessness Service (MBS), integrating palliative care, respiratory medicine and physiotherapy, was tested in the BreathEase trial in patients with chronic breathlessness in advanced disease and their carers. METHODS: BreathEase was a single-blinded randomised controlled fast-track trial. The MBS was attended for 5-6 weeks; the control group started the MBS after 8 weeks of standard care. Randomisation was stratified by cancer and the presence of a carer. Primary outcomes were patients' mastery of breathlessness (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) Mastery), quality of life (CRQ QoL), symptom burden (Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS)) and carer burden (Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI)). Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses were conducted with hierarchical testing. Effectiveness was investigated by linear regression on change scores, adjusting for baseline scores and stratification variables. Missing values were handled with multiple imputation. RESULTS: 92 patients were randomised to the intervention group and 91 patients were randomised to the control group. Before the follow-up assessment after 8 weeks (T1), 17 and five patients dropped out from the intervention and control groups, respectively. Significant improvements in CRQ Mastery of 0.367 (95% CI 0.065-0.669) and CRQ QoL of 0.226 (95% CI 0.012-0.440) score units at T1 in favour of the intervention group were seen in the ITT analyses (n=183), but not in IPOS. Exploratory testing showed nonsignificant improvements in ZBI. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate positive effects of the MBS in reducing burden caused by chronic breathlessness in advanced illness across a wide range of patients. Further evaluation in subgroups of patients and with a longitudinal perspective is needed.

A brief, patient- and proxy-reported outcome measure in advanced illness: Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS).

BACKGROUND: Few measures capture the complex symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care. AIM: To validate the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale, a measure underpinned by extensive psychometric development, by evaluating its validity, reliability and responsiveness to change. DESIGN: Concurrent, cross-cultural validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - both (1) patient self-report and (2) staff proxy-report versions. We tested construct validity (factor analysis, known-group comparisons, and correlational analysis), reliability (internal consistency, agreement, and test-retest reliability), and responsiveness (through longitudinal evaluation of change). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In all, 376 adults receiving palliative care, and 161 clinicians, from a range of settings in the United Kingdom and Germany. RESULTS: We confirm a three-factor structure (Physical Symptoms, Emotional Symptoms and Communication/Practical Issues). Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows strong ability to distinguish between clinically relevant groups; total Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale scores were higher - reflecting more problems - in those patients with 'unstable' or 'deteriorating' versus 'stable' Phase of Illness (F = 15.1, p < 0.001). Good convergent and discriminant validity to hypothesised items and subscales of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General is demonstrated. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows good internal consistency (α = 0.77) and acceptable to good test-retest reliability (60% of items kw > 0.60). Longitudinal validity in form of responsiveness to change is good. CONCLUSION: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a valid and reliable outcome measure, both in patient self-report and staff proxy-report versions. It can assess and monitor symptoms and concerns in advanced illness, determine the impact of healthcare interventions, and demonstrate quality of care. This represents a major step forward internationally for palliative care outcome measurement.

BreathEase: rationale, design and recruitment of a randomised trial and embedded mixed-methods study of a multiprofessional breathlessness service in early palliative care.

BACKGROUND: The Munich Breathlessness Service has adapted novel support services to the German context, to reduce burden in patients and carers from breathlessness in advanced disease. It has been evaluated in a pragmatic fast-track randomised controlled trial (BreathEase; NCT02622412) with embedded qualitative interviews and postal survey. The aim of this article is to describe the intervention model and study design, analyse recruitment to the trial and compare sample characteristics with other studies in the field. METHODS: Analysis of recruitment pathways and enrolment, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants and carers. RESULTS: Out of 439 people screened, 253 (58%) were offered enrolment and 183 (42%) participated. n=97 (70%) carers participated. 186 (42%) people did not qualify for inclusion, mostly because breathlessness could not be attributed to an underlying disease. All participants were self-referring; 60% through media sources. Eligibility and willingness to participate were associated to social networks and illness-related activities as recruitment routes. Mean age of participants was 71 years (51% women), with COPD (63%), chronic heart failure (8%), interstitial lung disease (9%), pulmonary hypertension (6%) and cancer (7%) as underlying conditions. Postal survey response rate was 89%. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 patients and nine carers. CONCLUSION: The BreathEase study has a larger and more heterogeneous sample compared to other trials. The self-referral-based and prolonged recruitment drawing on media sources approximates real-world conditions of early palliative care. Integrating qualitative and quantitative components will allow a better understanding and interpretation of the results of the main effectiveness study.