Dataset Information

The cost-effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the PRINCE cluster randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme (SEPRP) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) relative to usual practice in primary care. The programme consisted of group-based sessions delivered jointly by practice nurses and physiotherapists over 8 weeks.

Design

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Setting

32 general practices in Ireland.

Participants

350 adults with COPD, 69% of whom were moderately affected.

Interventions

Intervention arm (n=178) received a 2 h group-based SEPRP session per week over 8 weeks delivered jointly by a practice nurse and physiotherapist at the practice surgery or nearby venue. The control arm (n=172) received the usual practice in primary care.

Main outcome measures

Incremental costs, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) scores, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained estimated using the generic EQ5D instrument, and expected cost-effectiveness at 22 weeks trial follow-up.

Results

The intervention was associated with an increase of €944 (95% CIs 489 to 1400) in mean healthcare cost and €261 (95% CIs 226 to 296) in mean patient cost. The intervention was associated with a mean improvement of 1.11 (95% CIs 0.35 to 1.87) in CRQ Total score and 0.002 (95% CIs -0.006 to 0.011) in QALYs gained. These translated into incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €850 per unit increase in CRQ Total score and €472 000 per additional QALY gained. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective at respective threshold values of €5000, €15 000, €25 000, €35 000 and €45 000 was 0.980, 0.992, 0.994, 0.994 and 0.994 in the CRQ Total score analysis compared to 0.000, 0.001, 0.001, 0.003 and 0.007 in the QALYs gained analysis.

Conclusions

While analysis suggests that SEPRP was cost-effective if society is willing to pay at least €850 per one-point increase in disease-specific CRQ, no evidence exists when effectiveness was measured in QALYS gained.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52 403 063.

SUBMITTER: Gillespie P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3845253 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The cost-effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the PRINCE cluster randomised trial.

Gillespie Paddy P O'Shea Eamon E Casey Dympna D Murphy Kathy K Devane Declan D Cooney Adeline A Mee Lorraine L Kirwan Collette C McCarthy Bernard B Newell John J

BMJ open 20131125 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the cost-effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme (SEPRP) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) relative to usual practice in primary care. The programme consisted of group-based sessions delivered jointly by practice nurses and physiotherapists over 8 weeks.<h4>Design</h4>Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>32 general practices in Ireland.<h4>Particip ...[more]

PMID: 24282243

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterised mainly by exertional dyspnoea, which may lead to activity reduction. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is considered capable of mitigating these impairments. However, access to PR is limited to specialised centres, especially during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Moreover, low-cost home rehabilitation programmes have non-individualised prescriptions, which might lead to inconsistent clinical effects in patients with COPD. Therefore, it is important to develop new, low-cost protocols involving individualised prescriptions and staff supervision.MethodsThis is a descriptive protocol for a randomised controlled study at the Grade III A Hospital in Tianjin. The sample size was calculated according to a described formula. Fifty-six participants will be selected and randomly allocated into two groups: (I) control (traditional PR training, medication, and nursing interventions); and (II) intervention [PR training in the hospital and at home by the Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation System Management Platform (CSM)]. The protocol will be performed twice a week for 8 consecutive weeks in the outpatient clinic, and the training will be performed by the application of the CSM system in the final 6 months of the trial. The study will assess lung function and physical fitness and analyse the scores of the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale, the COPD assessment test, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health, and the 6-minute walk test before and after the training protocol. Comparison of differences will be performed using repeated measures analysis of variance, a linear mixed effects analysis, or a non-parametric test, which will include only participants who completed all outcome measures and followed the intervention protocol. The study results will be disseminated through presentations at scientific conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals.DiscussionThe new, low-cost supervised rehabilitation programmes are expected to present positive results, making PR programmes more accessible and effective for patients with COPD.Trial registrationThe study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000040723.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Standardised evidenced-based materials and mechanisms to facilitate the delivery of the education component of pulmonary rehabilitation are not widely available. The aims of this study were: 1) to adapt the self-management programme Living Well with COPD (LWWCOPD) programme, for embedding in pulmonary rehabilitation; and, 2) to conduct a process evaluation of the adapted programme. METHODS:The adaptations to the LWWCOPD programme were informed by focus groups, current practice, relevant research and guideline documents. Pulmonary rehabilitation sites used the adapted programme, the LWWCOPD programme for pulmonary rehabilitation, to deliver the education component of pulmonary rehabilitation. A process evaluation was conducted: elements included reach (patients' attendance rates), dose delivered (amount of programme delivered), dose received (health professional and patient satisfaction) and fidelity (impact on patients' knowledge, understanding and self-efficacy on the Understanding COPD questionnaire). Descriptive statistics (mean, SD) were used to summarise demographics and key data from the feedback questionnaires. Qualitative feedback on the programme was collated and categorised. Changes in the Understanding COPD questionnaire were examined using paired t-tests. RESULTS:The LWWCOPD programme for pulmonary rehabilitation was delivered in eleven hospital- and community-based programmes (n=25 health professionals, n=57 patients with COPD). It consisted of six weekly 30-45 minute sessions. The process evaluation showed positive results: 62.3% of patients attended ? 4 education sessions (reach); mean (SD) 90 (10)% of the session content were delivered (dose delivered); the majority of sessions were rated as excellent or good by health professionals and patients. Patients' satisfaction was high: mean (SD) Section B of the Understanding COPD questionnaire: 91.67 (9.55)% (dose received). Knowledge, understanding and self-efficacy improved significantly: mean change (95% CI): Section A of the Understanding COPD questionnaire: 26.75 (21.74 to 31.76)%, BCKQ 10.64 (6.92 to 14.37)% (fidelity). CONCLUSION:This rigorous process evaluation has demonstrated that the LWWCOPD programme for pulmonary rehabilitation can be used to deliver high quality, consistent and equitable education sessions during hospital and community-based pulmonary rehabilitation. This programme is now available worldwide (http://www.livingwellwithcopd.com/living-well-and-pulmonary-rehabilitation.html). TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (reference number: NCT01226836).

Project description:ImportancePulmonary rehabilitation (PR) after exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is effective in reducing COPD hospitalizations and mortality while improving health-related quality of life, yet use of PR remains low. Estimates of the cost-effectiveness of PR in this setting could inform policies to improve uptake.ObjectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of participation in PR after hospitalization for COPD.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation estimated the cost-effectiveness of participation in PR compared with no PR after COPD hospitalization in the US using a societal perspective analysis. A Markov microsimulation model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness in the US health care system with a lifetime horizon, 1-year cycle length, and a discounted rate of 3% per year for both costs and outcomes. Data sources included published literature from October 1, 2001, to April 1, 2021, with the primary source being an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries living with COPD between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. The analysis was designed and conducted from October 1, 2019, to December 15, 2021. A base case microsimulation, univariate analyses, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed.InterventionsPulmonary rehabilitation compared with no PR after COPD hospitalization.Main outcomes and measuresNet cost in US dollars, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.ResultsAmong the hypothetical cohort with a mean age of 76.9 (age range, 60-92) years and 58.6% women, the base case microsimulation from a societal perspective demonstrated that PR resulted in net cost savings per patient of $5721 (95% prediction interval, $3307-$8388) and improved quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) (gain of 0.53 [95% prediction interval, 0.43-0.63] years). The findings of net cost savings and improved QALE with PR did not change in univariate analyses of patient age, the Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease stage, or number of PR sessions. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, PR resulted in net cost savings and improved QALE in every one of 1000 samples and was the dominant strategy in 100% of simulations at any willingness-to-pay threshold. In a 1-way sensitivity analysis of total cost, assuming completion of 36 sessions, a single PR session would remain cost saving to $171 per session and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $884 per session for $50 000/QALY and $1597 per session for $100 000/QALY.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, PR after COPD hospitalization appeared to result in net cost savings along with improvement in QALE. These findings suggest that stakeholders should identify policies to increase access and adherence to PR for patients with COPD.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To obtain evidence whether the online pulmonary rehabilitation(PR) programme 'my-PR' is non-inferior to a conventional face-to-face PR in improving physical performance and symptom scores in patients with COPD. DESIGN:A two-arm parallel single-blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING:The online arm carried out pulmonary rehabilitation in their own homes and the face to face arm in a local rehabilitation facility. PARTICIPANTS:90 patients with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), modified Medical Research Council score of 2 or greater referred for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), randomised in a 2:1 ratio to online (n=64) or face-to-face PR (n=26). Participants unable to use an internet-enabled device at home were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Coprimary outcomes were 6?min walk distance test and the COPD assessment test (CAT) score at completion of the programme. INTERVENTIONS:A 6-week PR programme organised either as group sessions in a local rehabilitation facility, or online PR via log in and access to 'myPR'. RESULTS:The adjusted mean difference for the 6 min walk test (6MWT) between groups for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population was 23.8 m with the lower 95%?CI well above the non-inferiority threshold of -40.5 m at -4.5 m with an upper 95%?CI of +52.2 m. This result was consistent in the per-protocol (PP) population with a mean adjusted difference of 15 m (-13.7 to 43.8). The CAT score difference in the ITT was -1.0 in favour of the online intervention with the upper 95%?CI well below the non-inferiority threshold of 1.8 at 0.86 and the lower 95%?CI of -2.9. The PP analysis was consistent with the ITT. CONCLUSION:PR is an evidenced-based and guideline-mandated intervention for patients with COPD with functional limitation. A 6-week programme of online-supported PR was non-inferior to a conventional model delivered in face-to-face sessions in terms of effects on 6MWT distance, and symptom scores and was safe and well tolerated.

Project description:BackgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a cornerstone in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), targeting skeletal muscle to improve functional performance. However, there is substantial inter-individual variability in the effect of PR on functional performance, which cannot be fully accounted for by generic phenotypic factors. We performed an unbiased integrative analysis of the skeletal muscle molecular responses to PR in COPD patients and comprehensively characterized their baseline pulmonary and physical function, body composition, blood profile, comorbidities, and medication use.MethodsMusculus vastus lateralis biopsies were obtained from 51 COPD patients (age 64 ± 1 years, sex 73% men, FEV1 , 34 (26-41) %pred.) before and after 4 weeks high-intensity supervised in-patient PR. Muscle molecular markers were grouped by network-constrained clustering, and their relative changes in expression values-assessed by qPCR and western blot-were reduced to process scores by principal component analysis. Patients were subsequently clustered based on these process scores. Pre-PR and post-PR functional performance was assessed by incremental cycle ergometry and 6 min walking test (6MWT).ResultsEight molecular processes were discerned by network-constrained hierarchical clustering of the skeletal muscle molecular rehabilitation responses. Based on the resulting process scores, four clusters of patients were identified by hierarchical cluster analysis. Two major patient clusters differed in PR-induced autophagy (P < 0.001), myogenesis (P = 0.014), glucocorticoid signalling (P < 0.001), and oxidative metabolism regulation (P < 0.001), with Cluster 1 (C1; n = 29) overall displaying a more pronounced change in marker expression than Cluster 2 (C2; n = 16). General baseline characteristics did not differ between clusters. Following PR, both 6 min walking distance (+26.5 ± 8.3 m, P = 0.003) and peak load on the cycle ergometer test (+9.7 ± 1.9 W, P < 0.001) were improved. However, the functional improvement was more pronounced in C1, as a higher percentage of patients exceeded the minimal clinically important difference in peak workload (61 vs. 21%, P = 0.022) and both peak workload and 6 min walking test (52 vs. 8%, P = 0.008) upon PR.ConclusionsWe identified patient groups with distinct skeletal muscle molecular responses to rehabilitation, associated with differences in functional improvements upon PR.

Dataset Information

The cost-effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the PRINCE cluster randomised trial.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

The cost-effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the PRINCE cluster randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets