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]

Background: Physical activity levels are low in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and there is limited knowledge about how pulmonary rehabilitation transforms movement behaviors. This study analyzed data from a pulmonary rehabilitation trial and identified determinants of movement behaviors. Methods: Objectively assessed time in daily movement behaviors (sleep, sedentary, light-intensity physical activity, and moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity) from a randomized controlled trial (n = 73 participants) comparing home- and center-based pulmonary rehabilitation was analyzed using conventional and compositional analytical approaches. Regression analysis was used to assess relationships between movement behaviors, participant features, and response to the interventions. Results: Compositional analysis revealed no significant differences in movement profiles between the home- and center-based groups. At end rehabilitation, conventional analyses identified positive relationships between exercise capacity (6-min walk distance), light-intensity physical activity, and moderateto vigorous-intensity physical activity time. Compositional analyses identified positive relationships between a 6-minute walk distance and moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity time, accompanied by negative relationships with sleep and sedentary time (relative to other time components) and novel relationships between body mass index and light-intensity physical activity/sedentary time. Conclusion: Compositional analyses following pulmonary rehabilitation identified unique associations between movement behaviors that were not evident in conventional analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine associations between chronic plantar heel pain (CPHP) and imaging biomarkers derived from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography. Methods: We compared 218 participants with CPHP with 100 age‐ and sex‐matched population controls. We assessed imaging biomarkers on MRI (calcaneal bone marrow lesions [BMLs], plantar fascia [PF] signal and thickness, spurs, and fat pad signal) and B‐mode/power Doppler ultrasound (PF thickness, echogenicity, and vascularity). Covariate data collected included demographic characteristics, disease history, clinical measures, and physical activity by accelerometry. Data were analyzed using multivariable conditional logistic regression. Results: Plantar calcaneal BML size (mm2, odds ratio [OR] 1.03 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.02–1.05]), larger plantar spurs (OR for spurs >5 mm 2.15 [95% CI 1.13–4.10]), PF signal (OR for signal penetrating >50% of the dorsoplantar width 12.12 [95% CI 5.36–27.42]), PF thickness (mm, OR for MRI 3.23 [95% CI 2.36–4.43] and ultrasound OR 3.78 [95% CI 2.69–5.32]), and echogenicity (diffusely hypoechoic OR 7.89 [95% CI 4.02–15.48] and focally hypoechoic OR 24.92 [95% CI 9.60–64.69]) were independently associated with CPHP. PF vascularity was uncommon, occurring exclusively in cases (cases with signal n = 47 [22%]). Combining imaging biomarkers into 1 model, plantar BMLs and PF imaging biomarkers, but not fat pad signal or heel spurs, were independently associated with CPHP. Conclusion: Calcaneal BMLs and PF imaging biomarkers are associated with CPHP. Further research is required to understand whether these different markers represent distinct phenotypes of heel pain, and if so, whether there are specific treatment implications. [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 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]

This study aimed to document the perspective of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who underwent home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (HBPR) in a clinical trial. In this qualitative study, open-ended questions explored participants’ views regarding HBPR. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. Major themes from interviews included the positive impact of HBPR on physical fitness, breathing and mood. Participants valued the flexibility and convenience of the programme. Participants also highlighted the importance of social support received, both from the physiotherapist over the phone and from family and friends who encouraged their participation. Reported challenges were difficulties in initiating exercise, lack of variety in training and physical incapability. While most participants supported the home setting, one participant would have preferred receiving supervised exercise training at the hospital. Participants also reported that HBPR had helped establish an exercise routine and improved their disease management. This study suggests that people with COPD valued the convenience of HBPR, experienced positive impacts on physical fitness and symptoms and felt supported by their community and programme staff. This highly structured HBPR model may be acceptable to some people with COPD as an alternative to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: New pulmonary rehabilitation models can improve access to this effective but underutilised treatment for people with chronic respiratory disease, however cost effectiveness has not been determined., Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of telerehabilitation, including videoconferencing and synchronous supervision, to standard center-based pulmonary rehabilitation., Methods: Prospective economic analyses were undertaken from a societal perspective alongside a randomised 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 dyspnoea domain [CRQ-D] score) was undertaken at baseline, following pulmonary rehabilitation and 12-month follow-up. Individual-level administrative and self-report healthcare cost data were collected over 12 months following the program (Australian dollars, 2020) Results: There were no between-group differences for effectiveness (CRQ-D MD -0.2 [SE 1.0], p=0.61) or total costs ($565 [5452], 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. Results were robust to approach, 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%CI -29,967 to -5952). Conclusions This study supports delivery of telerehabilitation as a cost-effective alternative model of pulmonary rehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease.