4.6 Article

Is INTERdisciplinary COMmunity-based COPD management (INTERCOM) cost-ffective?

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 79-87

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00043309

关键词

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; community-based; cost-effectiveness; pulmonary rehabilitation; quality-adjusted life years

资金

  1. Netherlands Asthma Foundation (NAF) [3.4.01.63]
  2. Stichting Astma Bestrijding (SAB
  3. Amsterdam, the Netherlands)
  4. Nutricia Netherlands
  5. Pfizer
  6. Care Solutions (PICASSO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of interdisciplinary community-based chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management in patients with COPD. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a 2-yr randomised controlled trial, in which 199 patients with less advanced airflow obstruction and impaired exercise capacity were assigned to the INTERCOM programme or usual care. The INTERCOM programme consisted of exercise training, education, nutritional therapy and smoking cessation counselling offered by community-based physiotherapists and dieticians and hospital-based respiratory nurses. All-cause resource use during 2 yrs was obtained by self-report and from hospital and pharmacy records. Health outcomes were the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), exacerbations and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The INTERCOM group had 30% (95% CI 3-56%) more patients with a clinically relevant improvement in SGRQ total score, 0.08 (95% CI -0.01-0.18) more QALYs per patient, but a higher mean number of exacerbations, 0.84 (95% CI -0.07-1.78). Mean total 2-yr costs were (sic)2,751 (95% CI -(sic)632-(sic)6,372) higher for INTERCOM than for usual care, which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of (sic)9,078 per additional patient with a relevant improvement in SGRQ or (sic)32,425 per QALY. INTERCOM significantly improved disease-specific quality of life, but did not affect exacerbation rate. The cost per QALY ratio was moderate, but within the range of that generally considered to be acceptable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据