Hybrid compared to conventional pulmonary rehabilitation: an equivalence analysis

Background Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a well-established intervention for patients with COPD, but access, uptake and completion are low. This retrospective propensity-matched study aimed to analyse equivalence from a hybrid PR modality against conventional PR. Methods Between 2013 and 2019, 214 patients with COPD with valid baseline physical activity assessments enrolled in conventional PR for three times per week for 3 months. In 2021–2022, 44 patients with COPD enrolled in 3 months of hybrid PR, introducing two providers: once per week in the outpatient centre and two times per week in a primary care setting near the patient's home. All sessions were supervised. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed. Equivalence between both programmes was analysed for exercise capacity with the equivalence margins of ±30 m on the 6-min walk distance (6MWD). Clinical outcomes, accessibility and adherence were compared using t-tests. Results 44 patients (mean± sd age 67±8 years; forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) 47±15% predicted; 6MWD 355±122 m) in the hybrid PR group were matched to 44 patients (mean± sd age 66±8 years; FEV 1 46±17% predicted; 6MWD 354±103 m) in the conventional PR group. Equivalence on the increase in 6MWD could not be confirmed; nevertheless, both groups improved their 6MWD clinically significantly (hybrid PR change 63 m (90% CI 43–83 m); conventional PR change 39 m (90% CI 26–52 m)). Changes in quality of life and symptoms were similar. Dropout in hybrid PR (23%) was comparable to conventional PR (27%) (p=0.24). Adherence in both groups was high and accessibility was better for patients following hybrid PR. Conclusion Hybrid PR can be offered as an effective alternative to conventional PR, if patients are willing to take up the offer.