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.