Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation for COPD using minimal resources: An economic analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of home and centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation for adults with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Prospective economic analyses were undertaken from a health system perspective alongside a randomized controlled equivalence trial in which participants referred to pulmonary rehabilitation undertook a standard 8-week outpatient centre-based or a new home-based programme. Participants underwent clinical assessment prior to programme commencement, immediately following completion and 12 months following programme completion. They provided data for utility (quality-adjusted life years (QALY) determined using SF6D (utility scores for health states) calculated from 36-Item Short Form Health Survey version 2) and effectiveness (change in distance walked on 6-min walk test (Δ6MWD) following pulmonary rehabilitation ). Individual-level cost data for the 12 months following programme completion was sourced from healthcare administration and government databases. RESULTS: Between-group mean difference point estimates for cost (-$4497 (95% CI: -$12 250 to $3257), utility (0.025 (-0.038 to 0.086) QALY) and effectiveness (14 m (-11 to 39) Δ6MWD) favoured the home-based group. Cost-utility analyses demonstrated 63% of estimates falling in the dominant southeast quadrant and the probability that the new home-based model was cost-effective at a $0 threshold for willingness to pay was 78%. Results were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. Programme completion was associated with significantly lower healthcare costs in the following 12 months. CONCLUSION: Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation provides a cost-effective alternative model for people with COPD who cannot access traditional centre-based programmes.

Participation in Physical Activity During Center and Home-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation for People With COPD: A SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL.

PURPOSE: To compare levels of physical activity during center and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: Forty-five consecutive participants (23 male, n = 20, in the home-based group) with mean age of 68 ± 8 yr and forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration (FEV1) 53 ± 18% predicted undertook physical activity monitoring using the SenseWear Armband during the final week of the interventions of center or home-based PR. Differences in time spent in total physical activity (≥1.5 METs), time spent in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (≥3 METs), and steps were compared. RESULTS: Home participants spent a median and interquartile range of 310 (199-328) min/d engaged in total physical activity (29% moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity) compared with 300 (204-370) min/d for the center group (28% moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity, P = .98). Daily step count did not differ between groups (home-based median 5232 [2067-7718] versus center-based median 4049 [1983-6040], P = .66). Of note, center-based participants took 38% more steps on days of program attendance compared with nonattendance days (mean difference: 761 steps/d; 95% CI, -56 to 1579, P = .06). CONCLUSION: For people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease undertaking PR, no differences in physical activity levels between center and home-based programs were demonstrated. Understanding the impact of the indirect supervision and motivational interviewing technique utilized during home-based PR on levels of physical activity in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may support clinical implementation of the model as an alternative option to traditional care.

Telerehabilitation versus traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective therapeutic intervention for people with chronic respiratory disease. However, fewer than 5% of eligible individuals receive pulmonary rehabilitation on an annual basis, largely due to limited availability of services and difficulties associated with travel and transport. The Rehabilitation Exercise At Home (REAcH) study is an assessor-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled equivalence trial designed to compare the efficacy of home-based telerehabilitation and traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation in people with chronic respiratory disease. METHODS: Participants will undertake an 8-week group-based pulmonary rehabilitation program of twice-weekly supervised exercise training, either in-person at a centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation program or remotely from their home via the Internet. Supervised exercise training sessions will include 30 min of aerobic exercise (cycle and/or walking training). Individualised education and self-management training will be delivered. All participants will be prescribed a home exercise program of walking and strengthening activities. Outcomes will be assessed by a blinded assessor at baseline, after completion of the intervention, and 12-months post intervention. The primary outcome is change in dyspnea score as measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire - dyspnea domain (CRQ-D). Secondary outcomes will evaluate the efficacy of telerehabilitation on 6-min walk distance, endurance cycle time during a constant work rate test, physical activity and quality of life. Adherence to pulmonary rehabilitation between the two models will be compared. A full economic analysis from a societal perspective will be undertaken to determine the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation compared to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. DISCUSSION: Alternative models of pulmonary rehabilitation are required to improve both equity of access and patient-related outcomes. This trial will establish whether telerehabilitation can achieve equivalent improvement in outcomes compared to traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. If efficacious and cost-effective, the proposed telerehabilitation model is designed to be rapidly deployed into clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register at ( ACTRN12616000360415 ). Registered 21 March 2016.