Search

The article explores the potential benefits of chest wall mobilization as an adjunct therapy for individuals with severe COPD. A structured program involving stretching exercises and thoracic joint mobilization led to improvements in exercise tolerance and respiratory muscle efficiency. While the study focused on males with COPD, further research is needed to determine the efficacy of these techniques across different demographics and the broader spectrum of COPD. The findings suggest that chest wall mobilization may have a positive impact on respiratory muscle strength and exercise capacity in individuals with COPD. [Extracted from the article]

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. This economic evaluation compared a new home‐based pulmonary rehabilitation model with traditional centre‐based practice, demonstrating favourable results using both cost‐utility and cost‐effectiveness approaches. Regardless of programme location, completion of pulmonary rehabilitation was associated with a significant reduction in healthcare costs in the following 12 months. See relatedEditorial [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

See relatedarticle [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]