Home treatment of COPD exacerbation selected by DECAF score: A non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation

41Citations
Citations of this article
145Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Previous models of Hospital at Home (HAH) for COPD exacerbation (ECOPD) were limited by the lack of a reliable prognostic score to guide patient selection. Approximately 50% of hospitalised patients have a low mortality risk by DECAF, thus are potentially suitable. Methods In a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, 118 patients admitted with a low-risk ECOPD (DECAF 0 or 1) were recruited to HAH or usual care (UC). The primary outcome was health and social costs at 90 days. Results Mean 90-day costs were £1016 lower in HAH, but the one-sided 95% CI crossed the non-inferiority limit of £150 (CI -2343 to 312). Savings were primarily due to reduced hospital bed days: HAH=1 (IQR 1-7), UC=5 (IQR 2-12) (P=0.001). Length of stay during the index admission in UC was only 3 days, which was 2 days shorter than expected. Based on quality-adjusted life years, the probability of HAH being cost-effective was 90%. There was one death within 90 days in each arm, readmission rates were similar and 90% of patients preferred HAH for subsequent ECOPD. Conclusion HAH selected by low-risk DECAF score was safe, clinically effective, cost-effective, and preferred by most patients. Compared with earlier models, selection is simpler and approximately twice as many patients are eligible. The introduction of DECAF was associated with a fall in UC length of stay without adverse outcome, supporting use of DECAF to direct early discharge. Trial registration number Registered prospectively ISRCTN29082260.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Echevarria, C., Gray, J., Hartley, T., Steer, J., Miller, J., Simpson, A. J., … Bourke, S. C. (2018). Home treatment of COPD exacerbation selected by DECAF score: A non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Thorax, 73(8), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-211197

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free