Cost–Utility Analysis of Supervised Inspiratory Muscle Training Added to Post-COVID Rehabilitation Program in the Public Health System of Brazil

Guilherme Pacheco Modesto, Aline Loschi Soria, Luis V. F. Oliveira, Everton Nunes da Silva, Graziella F. B. Cipriano, Gerson Cipriano and Vinicius Maldaner ()
Additional contact information
Guilherme Pacheco Modesto: Human Movement and Rehabilitation Graduate Program, UniEvangelica, Anapolis 75083-515, Brazil
Aline Loschi Soria: Health Sciences Program, Escola Superior de Ciências da Saúde, Brasilia 70710-907, Brazil
Luis V. F. Oliveira: Human Movement and Rehabilitation Graduate Program, UniEvangelica, Anapolis 75083-515, Brazil
Everton Nunes da Silva: Sciences and Technology in Health Program, Universidade de Brasilia, Brasilia 72220-275, Brazil
Graziella F. B. Cipriano: Sciences and Technology in Health Program, Universidade de Brasilia, Brasilia 72220-275, Brazil
Gerson Cipriano: Human Movement and Rehabilitation Graduate Program, UniEvangelica, Anapolis 75083-515, Brazil
Vinicius Maldaner: Human Movement and Rehabilitation Graduate Program, UniEvangelica, Anapolis 75083-515, Brazil

IJERPH, 2024, vol. 21, issue 11, 1-8

Abstract: Objectives: This study aims to provide model-based cost–utility estimates for the addition of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) in COVID-19 pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Methods: A cohort model comparing IMT with PR (intervention group) to IMT with only PR (control group) was used. The payer perspective from the Unified Health System in Brazil was adopted. Effectiveness parameters: Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed using 1000 Monte Carlo simulations. A beta probability distribution was assumed for utilities, and a gamma distribution was applied to the costs. A cost-effectiveness threshold of BRL 40.000/QALYs was applied. Results: As the threshold of BRL 40.000/QALYs, we obtained 512 (51.2%) simulations that can be considered cost-effective to IMT added in PR programs. IMT added in PR treatment was more expensive (USD 317.73 versus USD 293.93) and more effective (incremental utility of 0.03 to INT group) than PR alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 793.93 USD/QALY. Conclusions: IMT added to PR is a cost-effective alternative compared with PR for post-COVID-19 patients. This strategy may result in net cost savings and improvements in the QALYs for these patients.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness analysis; COVID-19; health-related quality of life; rehabilitation; respiratory muscle training (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/11/1434/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/11/1434/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:21:y:2024:i:11:p:1434-:d:1508950

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().