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.