Search

Rationale: New pulmonary rehabilitation models can improve access to this effective but underused treatment for people with chronic respiratory disease; however, cost-effectiveness has not been determined. Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation, including videoconferencing and synchronous supervision, with standard center-based pulmonary rehabilitation. Methods: Prospective economic analyses were undertaken from a societal perspective alongside a randomized controlled equivalence trial in which adults with stable chronic respiratory disease undertook an 8-week outpatient center-based program or telerehabilitation. Clinical assessment for effectiveness (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire dyspnea domain score) was undertaken at baseline, after pulmonary rehabilitation, and at 12-month follow-up. Individual-level administrative and self-report healthcare cost data were collected over 12 months after the program (Australian dollars, 2020). Results: There were no between-group differences for effectiveness (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire dyspnea domain mean difference, −0.2 [standard error, 1.0]; P = 0.61) or total costs ($565 [5,452]; P = 0.92) over 12 months. On the cost-effectiveness plane, 97.4% of estimates fell between the equivalence margins for effectiveness. Application of a range of values for cost margin demonstrated a 95% probability that telerehabilitation was equivalent to center-based pulmonary rehabilitation when the threshold was $11,000. The results were robust to approach and sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The internal rate of return was 134% over 5 years. Program completion (regardless of model) was associated with a significant reduction in total costs in the following 12 months (β, −$17,960; 95% confidence interval, −29,967 to −5,952). Conclusions: This study supports delivery of telerehabilitation as a cost-effective alternative model of pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease. Clinical trial registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ACTRN12616000360415). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine the uptake of the Alfred Health Post‐COVID service among people hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) or referred by general practitioners; to describe their characteristics and symptoms at eight weeks and the clinical services they required. Study design: Observational cohort study. Setting: Outpatient post‐COVID‐19 follow‐up service in a tertiary Melbourne hospital. Participants: All people admitted to Alfred Health (inpatients, hospital‐in‐the‐home) with COVID‐19, 19 March 2020 – 28 December 2022; people with persistent symptoms referred by general practitioners in the Alfred Health catchment area during 2022. Intervention: Questionnaire‐based symptom assessment eight weeks after onset of COVID‐19. Dyspnoea, fatigue, depression, anxiety, and post‐traumatic stress disorder were assessed with standardised tools, as were health status and health‐related quality of life; return to work or study, weight loss, and altered cognition and memory were also assessed. Screening was followed by physical assessment and management at the service (specialist general medicine review, physiotherapist, allied health assistant, neuropsychologist) and referral to other specialist medical services as required. Main outcome measures: Proportion of eligible people who used the service for follow‐up at eight weeks; proportions of service users who reported symptoms and return to pre‐COVID‐19 employment or study; clinical services required by service users. Results: Of 6712 people invited for screening, 726 completed questionnaires (11%). At least one persistent symptom was reported by 385 of 642 respondents (60% of respondents, 5.7% of invitees), most frequently memory (371 of 656, 57%) or concentration problems (431 of 656, 66%), dyspnoea (197 of 703, 28%), and extreme fatigue (189 of 673, 28%). Sixty‐seven of 453 respondents had not returned to pre‐COVID‐19 work or study (15%). People were referred to a variety of medical and non‐medical services for management, including specialist medical clinics, allied health, and rehabilitation. Among 71 people who also completed questionnaires at twelve months, the proportions who reported fatigue, anxiety, and memory and concentration changes were similar at both assessments. Conclusions: After acute COVID‐19 that required hospital admission or was followed by persistent symptoms in community care, a small proportion of people (5.7%) reported symptoms that required medical and allied health specialist assessment and management. Our findings may assist planning services for people with long COVID. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine the proportion of people who achieve minimal clinically important differences (MCID) with centre-based or home-based pulmonary rehabilitation and to synthesise data on adverse events. Methods: Cochrane reviews and electronic databases were searched to identify randomised trials comparing centre-based to home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, or either model to usual care, in people with chronic respiratory disease. Primary outcomes were the proportion of participants achieving MCIDs in exercise capacity and disease-specific quality of life. Secondary outcomes were symptoms and adverse events. Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 and GRADE were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence respectively. Results: Forty-nine trials were eligible. Compared to usual care, a higher proportion of pulmonary rehabilitation participants achieved the MCID for exercise capacity (6MWT: 47% vs 20%, p = 0.11), dyspnoea (43% vs 29%, p = 0.0001), fatigue (48% vs 27%, p = 0.0002) and emotional function (37% vs 25%, p = 0.02), with all of these between group differences statistically significant except for exercise capacity. There were no differences between centre-based and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in the proportion of participants who achieved MCIDs (34%- 58% across studies). Ninety percent of trials reported no adverse events. Certainty of evidence was low-to- moderate with all outcomes except for CRQ-mastery (centre-based vs home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, or pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in COPD), ESWT (pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in COPD) and 6MWT (pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in bronchiectasis) where evidence was very uncertain. Discussion: Clinically meaningful outcomes are achieved by similar proportions of participants in centre-based and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, with few adverse events. Reporting of trial outcomes according to MCIDs is necessary for informed decision making regarding pulmonary rehabilitation models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective treatment for people with chronic respiratory disease but is delivered to <5% of eligible individuals. This study investigated whether home-based telerehabilitation was equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation in people with chronic respiratory disease.Methods: A multicentre randomised controlled trial with assessor blinding, powered for equivalence was undertaken. Individuals with a chronic respiratory disease referred to pulmonary rehabilitation at four participating sites (one rural) were eligible and randomised using concealed allocation to pulmonary rehabilitation or telerehabilitation. Both programmes were two times per week for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was change in Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire Dyspnoea (CRQ-D) domain at end-rehabilitation, with a prespecified equivalence margin of 2.5 points. Follow-up was at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, symptoms, self-efficacy and psychological well-being.Results: 142 participants were randomised to pulmonary rehabilitation or telerehabilitation with 96% and 97% included in the intention-to-treat analysis, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups for any outcome at either time point. Both groups achieved meaningful improvement in dyspnoea and exercise capacity at end-rehabilitation. However, we were unable to confirm equivalence of telerehabilitation for the primary outcome ΔCRQ-D at end-rehabilitation (mean difference (MD) (95% CI) -1 point (-3 to 1)), and inferiority of telerehabilitation could not be excluded at either time point (12-month follow-up: MD -1 point (95% CI -4 to 1)). At end-rehabilitation, telerehabilitation demonstrated equivalence for 6-minute walk distance (MD -6 m, 95% CI -26 to 15) with possibly superiority of telerehabilitation at 12 months (MD 14 m, 95% CI -10 to 38).Conclusion: telerehabilitation may not be equivalent to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation for all outcomes, but is safe and achieves clinically meaningful benefits. When centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation is not available, telerehabilitation may provide an alternative programme model.Trial Registration Number: ACtelerehabilitationN12616000360415. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The impact of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) on survival in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD) is unknown. Given the challenges conducting a large randomised controlled trial, we aimed to determine whether improvement in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) was associated with better survival.Methods: This retrospective, international cohort study included patients with fibrotic ILD participating in either inpatient or outpatient PR at 12 sites in 5 countries. Multivariable models were used to estimate the association between change in 6MWD and time to death or lung transplantation accounting for clustering by centre and other confounders.Results: 701 participants (445 men and 256 women) with fibrotic ILD were included. The mean±SD ages of the 196 inpatients and 505 outpatients were 70±11 and 69±12 years, respectively. Baseline/changes in 6MWD were 262±128/55±83 m for inpatients and 358±125/34±65 m for outpatients. Improvement in 6MWD during PR was associated with lower hazard rates for death or lung transplant on adjusted analysis for both inpatient (HR per 10 m 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.97, p<0.001) and outpatient PR (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.00, p=0.042). Participation in ≥80% of planned outpatient PR sessions was associated with a 33% lower risk of death (95% CI 0.49% to 0.92%).Conclusions: Patients with fibrotic ILD who improved physical performance during PR had better survival compared with those who did not improve performance. Confirmation of these hypothesis-generating findings in a randomised controlled trial would be required to definitely change clinical practice, and would further support efforts to improve availability of PR for patients with fibrotic ILD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis affects 62% of adults with bronchiectasis and is linked to greater bronchiectasis severity. However, the impact of symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis on disease‐specific and cough‐related quality of life is unknown. Methods: In this cross‐sectional study, adults with stable bronchiectasis and chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms completed the sinonasal outcome test‐22 (SNOT‐22), quality of life–bronchiectasis questionnaire, and Leicester cough questionnaire. Bronchiectasis severity was assessed using the bronchiectasis severity index (BSI) and chest high‐resolution computed tomography (HRCT). Results: Sixty participants with bronchiectasis (mean [SD] forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 73.2 [25.5] %predicted) were included. Greater severity of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms (based on SNOT‐22) was moderately associated with impaired cough‐related quality of life (according to the Leicester cough questionnaire; all r > −.60) and impaired bronchiectasis‐specific quality of life (based on the quality of life–bronchiectasis questionnaire), with impaired physical function (r = −.518), less vitality (r = −.631), reduced social function (r = −.546), greater treatment burden (r = −.411), and increased severity of respiratory symptoms (r = −.534). Chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms were unrelated to disease severity according to the BSI (r =.135) and HRCT scoring (all r <.200). The severity of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms was not affected by sputum color (p =.417) or the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa colonization (p =.73). Conclusions: In adults with bronchiectasis, chronic rhinosinusitis has a consistent and negative impact on both cough‐related and bronchiectasis‐specific quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]