Background Although pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is considered a key component in managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, uptake remains suboptimal. This systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of home-based PR (HBPR) programs for COPD patients. Methods A systematic review of scholarly literature published within the last 10 years from the conception of this project was conducted using internationally recognized guidelines. Search strategies were applied to electronic databases and clinical trial registries through March 2020 and updated in November 2021 to identify studies comparing HBPR with ‘usual care’ or outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (OPR). To critically appraise randomized studies, the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (ROB) was used. The quality of non-randomized studies was evaluated using the ACROBAT-NRSI tool. The quality of evidence relating to key outcomes was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), exacerbation frequencies, COPD-related hospital admissions, and program adherence. Three independent reviewers assessed methodologic quality and reviewed the studies. Results Twelve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 comparative observational studies were included. While considerable evidence relating to the effectiveness of HBPR programs for COPD patients exist, overall quality is low. There were no differences between HBPR and OPR in terms of safety, HRQoL, functional exercise capacity and health care resource utilization. Compared to usual care, functional exercise capacity seemed to significantly improve after HBPR. While patient compliance with HBPR is good, two factors appeared to increase the ‘risk’ of non-compliance: expectations of patients to 1) complete daily diaries/activity logs and 2) engage in solely unsupervised exercise sessions. Conclusion The overall quality for most outcomes was low to very low; however, HBPR seems to offer comparable short-term benefits to OPR.

Background Although remote home monitoring (RHM) has the capacity to prevent exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), evidence regarding its effectiveness remains unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of RHM in patients with COPD. Methods A systematic review of the scholarly literature published within the last 10 years was conducted using internationally recognized guidelines. Search strategies were applied to several electronic databases and clinical trial registries through March 2020 to identify studies comparing RHM to ‘no remote home monitoring’ (no RHM) or comparing RHM with provider’s feedback to RHM without feedback. To critically appraise the included randomized studies, the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (ROB) was used. The quality of included non-randomized interventional and comparative observational studies was evaluated using the ACROBAT-NRSI tool from the Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of evidence relating to key outcomes was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) on the following: health-related quality of life (HRQoL), patient experience and number of exacerbations, number of emergency room (ER) visits, COPD-related hospital admissions, and adherence as the proportion of patients who completed the study. Three independent reviewers assessed methodologic quality and reviewed the studies. Results Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two comparative observational studies were included in the review. The primary finding of this systematic review is that a considerable amount of evidence relating to the efficacy/effectiveness of RHM exists, but its quality is low. Although RHM is safe, it does not appear to improve HRQoL (regardless of the type of RHM), lung function or self-efficacy, or to reduce depression, anxiety, or healthcare resource utilization. The inclusion of regular feedback from providers may reduce COPD-related hospital admissions. Though adherence RHM remains unclear, both patient and provider satisfaction were high with the intervention. Conclusions Although a considerable amount of evidence to the effectiveness of RHM exists, due to heterogeneity of care settings and the low-quality evidence, they should be interpreted with caution.

Introduction:In Canada, reimbursement recommendations on drugs for common and rare indications (for example, orphan drugs) are made through the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) and the Common Drug Review (CDR). However, some stakeholders have called for a separate mechanism for orphan drugs, arguing that existing processes place too much weight on their high price tags. The purpose of this study was to examine factors associated with positive recommendations on drugs for rare diseases.Methods:Information was extracted from CDR and pCODR recommendations on drugs for diseases (prevalence of less than 1 in 2,000) up to April 2018. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were applied to explore the influence of the following variables on recommendations: year; prevalence; clinical safety and effectiveness (safety, quality of life, symptoms, surrogate outcomes, and survival); quality of evidence (availability of comparative data, external validity, and bias); unmet need; treatment cost; and incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER). Two-way interactions were also tested.Results:Of 128 recommendations, fifty-four (77 percent) and forty (69 percent) were positive for cancer and non-cancer indications, respectively. For cancer indications, all submissions reporting meaningful improvements in surrogate, quality of life, and survival outcomes were significantly more likely to have a positive recommendation. Submissions showing a lack of external validity were significantly less likely to receive a positive recommendation. For non-cancer indications, more recent submissions and those presenting no safety issues were associated with positive recommendations. Prevalence, treatment cost, and ICER were not determinants of positive or negative recommendations.Conclusions:For both cancer and non-cancer orphan drugs, impact on clinical safety and effectiveness, rather than cost, appears to be a key factor in the formulation of recommendations.

Introduction:Many population-based studies identify surgical complications using hospital discharge abstract databases (DAD). With DAD, however, complications occurring after the discharge date cannot be followed up. This study used physician claims data to identify the complications of partial nephrectomy, and to compare the rates of complications of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted nephrectomies.Methods:Physician claims, DAD, and ambulatory care data from April 2003 to March 2016 were provided by Alberta Health. DAD and ambulatory care data were used to extract information on patients with kidney cancer who underwent partial nephrectomy. All physician claims within 30 days before and after surgery for the cohort were extracted. The numbers of the same International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes before and after surgery were compared. If a number increased after surgery, this diagnosis was initially identified as a complication. All diagnoses with neoplasms were excluded. The incidence rates of complications for the three surgery groups were calculated. Chi-squared tests were conducted for the following nephrectomy comparisons: laparoscopic versus open; robot-assisted versus open; and robot-assisted versus laparoscopic.Results:A total of 1,890 kidney cancer patients had partial nephrectomies. Among them, 1,080, 411, and 399 had open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted nephrectomies, respectively. One patient who had two different nephrectomies on the same day was excluded from analysis. The robot-assisted group had lower rates of digestive complications (ICD-9: 537–578, 787, 789, 998.6) and infections (ICD-9: 004–041, 998.5) than the open group, and higher rates of genitourinary complications (ICD-9: 584–599, 788, 997.5) than the laparoscopy group. The robot-assisted group had lower rates than the open group for most of the complication categories, but the differences were not statistically significant.Conclusions:Robot-assisted surgery appears to be superior to open surgery, but no better than laparoscopic surgery, in terms of minimizing the risk of complications following partial nephrectomy.