The Cost Effectiveness of Maintenance Schedules Following Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects approximately 3 million people in the UK. An 8-week pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) course is recommended under current guidelines. However, studies show that initial benefits diminish over time. OBJECTIVE: We present here an economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a low-intensity maintenance programme over a time horizon of 1 year delivered in UK primary and secondary care settings. METHODS: Patients with COPD who completed at least 60 % of a standard 8-week PR programme were randomised to a 2-h maintenance session at 3, 6 and 9 months (n = 73) or treatment as usual (n = 75). Outcomes were change in Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) score, EQ-5D-based QALYs, cost (price year 2014) to the UK NHS and social services over the 12 months following initial PR, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: At 12 months, incremental cost to the NHS and social services was -£204.04 (95 % CI -£1522 to £1114). Incremental CRQ and QALY gains were -0.007 (-0.461 to 0.447) and +0.015 (-0.050 to 0.079), respectively. Based on point estimates, PR maintenance therefore dominates treatment as usual from the perspective of the NHS and social services in terms of cost per QALY gained. Whether it is cost effective in terms of CRQ depends on whether the £204 per patient could be reinvested elsewhere to a CRQ gain of greater than 0.007. However, there is much decision uncertainty: 95 % CIs around increments did not exclude zero, and there is a 72.9 % (72.5 %) probability that the ICER is below £20,000 (£30,000) per QALY. CONCLUSION: Future research should explore whether more intensive maintenance regimens offer benefit to patients at reasonable cost.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".