Dataset Information

Effect of a New Tele-Rehabilitation Program versus Standard Rehabilitation in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

ABSTRACT: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), rehabilitation is recommended, but attendance rates are low. Tele-rehabilitation may be key. We evaluate the effect of a tele-rehabilitation program vs. standard rehabilitation on COPD. A randomized, non-inferiority study comparing eight weeks of tele-rehabilitation (physiotherapist video/chat-consultations and workout sessions with a virtual-autonomous-physiotherapist-agent (VAPA)) and standard rehabilitation in stable patients with COPD. At baseline, after 8 weeks and 3 and 6 months of follow-up, 6 min walk test distance (6MWTD), 7-day pedometry, quality of life, exercise tolerance, adherence, patient satisfaction and safety were assessed. Fifty-four patients (70 ± 9 years, male 57%, FEV1% 34.53 ± 11.67, FVC% 68.8 ± 18.81, 6MWT 376.23 ± 92.02) were included. Twenty-seven patients were randomized to tele-rehabilitation. Non-inferiority in Δ6MWTD at 8 weeks (47.4 ± 31.4), and at 3 (56.0 ± 38.0) and 6 (95.2 ± 47.1) months follow-up, was observed. No significant difference was observed in 7-day pedometry or quality of life. In the intervention group, 6MWTD increased by 25% and 66% at 3 and 6 months, respectively; adherence was 81%; and patient satisfaction was 4.27 ± 0.77 (Likert scale 0-5). Non-inferiority between groups and high adherence, patient satisfaction and safety in the intervention group were found after rehabilitation and at 3 and 6 months of follow-up. Tele-rehabilitation with VAPA seems to be a promising alternative.

SUBMITTER: Cerdan-de-Las-Heras J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8745243 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.DesignA two-arm parallel single-blind, randomised controlled trial.SettingThe online arm carried out pulmonary rehabilitation in their own homes and the face to face arm in a local rehabilitation facility.Participants90 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 measuresCoprimary outcomes were 6 min walk distance test and the COPD assessment test (CAT) score at completion of the programme.InterventionsA 6-week PR programme organised either as group sessions in a local rehabilitation facility, or online PR via log in and access to 'myPR'.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionPR 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: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:RationaleCurrent practice guidelines recommend pulmonary rehabilitation as an adjunct to standard pharmacologic therapy for individuals with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Whether pulmonary rehabilitation benefits all subjects with COPD independent of baseline disease burden is not known.ObjectivesTo test whether pulmonary rehabilitation benefits patients with COPD independent of baseline exercise capacity, dyspnea, and lung function.MethodsData from a prospectively maintained database of participants with COPD enrolled in pulmonary rehabilitation at the University of Alabama at Birmingham from 1996 to 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Subjects were divided into four quartiles based on their baseline level of dyspnea as assessed by the San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire at the initial visit. Similar quartiles were assessed for FEV1 percent predicted as well as the 6-minute-walk distance (6MWD). The primary outcome was the change in quality of life as measured by the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Secondary outcomes were change in dyspnea, 6MWD, and depression scores assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Differences between baseline and final scores were compared using paired t tests and across quartiles using analysis of variance.Measurements and main resultsA total of 229 subjects were included. Their mean age was 66.5 (SD, 9) years. Ninety-one (40%) were female, and 42 (18%) were African American. The mean FEV1 percent predicted was 46.3% (20.0%). On completion of pulmonary rehabilitation, clinically significant improvements were seen in most components of SF-36: physical function, 11.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4-15.5; P < 0.001); health perception, 2.1 (95% CI, -0.7 to 4.8; P = 0.12); physical role, 16.7 (95% CI, 10.3-23.1; P < 0.001); emotional role, 14.7 (95% CI, 7.1-22.3; P < 0.001); social function, 16.4 (95% CI, 11.3-21.5; P < 0.001); mental health, 5.4 (95% CI, 2.6-8.3; P < 0.001); pain, 5 (95% CI, 1-9.1; P = 0.02); vitality, 12.4 (95% CI, 8.8-16.1; P < 0.001); and depression, 0.01 (95% CI, -0.11 to 0.07; P = 0.54). There was no difference in improvement in SF-36 across quartiles of San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire, 6MWD, and FEV1 percent predicted.ConclusionsPulmonary rehabilitation results in significant improvement in quality of life, dyspnea, and functional capacity independent of baseline disease burden.

Dataset Information

Effect of a New Tele-Rehabilitation Program versus Standard Rehabilitation in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets