Dataset Information

Shared care versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation: a cost-utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Background:Changes in the organisation of chronic healthcare, an increased awareness of costs and challenges of low adherence in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) call for the exploration of more flexible CR programmes as alternatives to hospital-based CR (H-CR). A model of shared care cardiac rehabilitation (SC-CR) that included general practitioners and the municipality was developed. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost utility of SC-CR versus H-CR. Methods:The cost-utility analysis was based on a randomised controlled trial of 212 patients who were allocated to SC-CR or H-CR and followed up for 12 months. A societal cost perspective was applied that included the cost of intervention, informal time, healthcare and productivity loss. Costing was based on a microcosting approach for the intervention and on national administrative registries for the other cost categories. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on the EuroQol 5-Dimensions measurements at baseline, after 4 months and after 12 months. Conventional cost-effectiveness methodology was employed to estimate the net benefit of SC-CR. Results:The average cost of SC-CR was 165.5 kDKK and H-CR 163 kDKK. Productivity loss comprised 74.1kDKK and 65.9 kDKK. SC-CR cost was an additional 2.5 kDKK (95%?CI -38.1 to 43.1) ? (0.33; -5.1 to 5.8 k€) and a QALY gain of 0.02 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.06). The probability that SC-CR would be cost-effective was 59% for a threshold value of willingness to pay of 300 kDKK (k€40.3). Conclusion:CR after shared care model and H-CR are comparable and similar in socioeconomic terms. Trial registration number:NCT01522001; Results.

SUBMITTER: Bertelsen JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5845395 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Shared care versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation: a cost-utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial.

Bertelsen Jannik B JB Dehbarez Nasrin Tayyari NT Refsgaard Jens J Kanstrup Helle H Johnsen Søren P SP Qvist Ina I Christensen Bo B Søgaard Rikke R Christensen Kent L KL

Open heart 20180207 1

<h4>Background</h4>Changes in the organisation of chronic healthcare, an increased awareness of costs and challenges of low adherence in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) call for the exploration of more flexible CR programmes as alternatives to hospital-based CR (H-CR). A model of shared care cardiac rehabilitation (SC-CR) that included general practitioners and the municipality was developed. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost utility of SC-CR versus H-CR.<h4>Methods</h4>The cost-utility ...[more]

PMID: 29531754

Similar Datasets

Project description:Learning and coping education strategies (LC) was implemented to enhance patient attendance in the cardiac rehabilitation programme. This study assessed the cost-utility of LC compared to standard education (standard) as part of a rehabilitation programme for patients with ischemic heart disease and heart failure.The study was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial with 825 patients who were allocated to LC or standard rehabilitation and followed for 5 months. The LC approach was identical to the standard approach in terms of physical training and education, but with the addition of individual interviews and weekly team evaluations by professionals. A societal cost perspective including the cost of intervention, health care, informal time and productivity loss was applied. Cost was based on a micro-costing approach for the intervention and national administrative registries for other cost categories. Quality adjusted life years (QALY) were based on SF-6D measurements at baseline, after intervention and follow-up using British preference weights. Multiple imputation was used to handle non-response on the SF-6D. Conventional cost effectiveness methodology was employed to estimate the net benefit of the LC and to illustrate cost effectiveness acceptability curves. The statistical analysis was based on means and bootstrapped standard errors.An additional cost of DKK 6,043 (95% CI -5,697; 17,783) and a QALY gain of 0.005 (95% CI -0.001; 0.012) was estimated for LC. However, better utility scores in both arms were due to higher utility while receiving the intervention than better health after the intervention. The probability that LC would be cost-effective did not exceed 29% for any threshold values of willingness to pay per QALY. The alternative scenario analysis was restricted to a health care perspective and showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness increased to 62% over the threshold values.The LC was unlikely to be cost-effective within 5 months of follow-up from a societal perspective, but longer-term follow-up should be evaluated before a definite conclusion is drawn.Future research should assess the LC strategies' long-term efficacy and cost-utility.NCT01668394.

Project description:BackgroundPractices regarding hospitalisation of children at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes vary both within countries and internationally, and high-quality evidence of best practice is scarce. The objective of this study was to close some of the gaps in evidence by comparing two alternative regimens for children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes: hospital-based care and hospital-based home care (HBHC), referring to specialist care in a home-based setting.MethodsA randomised controlled trial, including 60 children aged 3-15 years, took place at a university hospital in Sweden. When the children were medically stable, they were randomised to either the traditional, hospital-based care or to HBHC.ResultsTwo years after diagnosis there were no differences in HbA1c (p = 0.777), in episodes of severe hypoglycaemia (p = 0.167), or in insulin U/kg/24 h (p = 0.269). Over 24 months, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in how parents' reported the impact of paediatric chronic health condition on family (p = 0.138) or in parents' self-reported health-related quality of life (p = 0.067). However, there was a statistically significant difference regarding healthcare satisfaction, favouring HBHC (p = 0.002). In total, healthcare costs (direct costs) were significantly lower in the HBHC group but no statistically significant difference between the two groups in estimated lost production (indirect costs) for the family as a whole. Whereas mothers had a significantly lower value of lost production, when their children were treated within the HBHC regime, fathers had a higher, but not a significantly higher value. The results indicate that HBHC might be a cost-effective strategy in a healthcare sector perspective. When using the wider societal perspective, no difference in cost effectiveness or cost utility was found.ConclusionsOverall, there are only a few, well-designed and controlled studies that compare hospital care to different models of home care. The results of this study provide empirical support for the safety and feasibility of HBHC when a child is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Our results further indicate that the model of care may have an impact on families' daily living, not only during the initial period of care but for a longer period of time.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov with identity number NCT00804232 , December 2008.

Project description:Infective endocarditis (IE) is among the most serious infectious diseases in the western world. Treatment requires lengthy hospitalisation, high-dosage antibiotic therapy and possible valve replacement surgery. Despite advances in treatment, the 1-year mortality remains at 20-40%. Studies indicate that patients experience persisting physical symptoms, diminished quality of life and difficulties returning to work up to a year postdischarge. No studies investigating the effects of rehabilitation have been published. We present the rationale and design of the CopenHeart(IE) trial, which investigates the effect of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care for patients treated for IE.We will conduct a randomised clinical trial to investigate the effects of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care on the physical and psychosocial functioning of patients treated for IE. The trial is a multicentre, parallel design trial with 1 : 1 individual randomisation to either the intervention or control group. The intervention consists of five psychoeducational consultations provided by specialised nurses and a 12-week exercise training programme. The primary outcome is mental health (MH) measured by the standardised Short Form 36 (SF-36). The secondary outcome is peak oxygen uptake measured by the bicycle ergospirometry test. Furthermore, a number of exploratory analyses will be performed. Based on sample size calculation, 150 patients treated for left-sided (native or prosthetic valve) or cardiac device endocarditis will be included in the trial. A qualitative and a survey-based complementary study will be undertaken, to investigate postdischarge experiences of the patients. A qualitative postintervention study will explore rehabilitation participation experiences.The study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the regional research ethics committee (no H-1-2011-129) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (no 2007-58-0015). Study findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01512615.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults are at greater risk of medication-related harm than younger adults. The Integrated Medication Management model is an interdisciplinary method aiming to optimize medication therapy and improve patient outcomes.ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the cost effectiveness of a medication optimization intervention compared to standard care in acutely hospitalized older adults.MethodsA cost-utility analysis including 285 adults aged ≥ 70 years was carried out alongside the IMMENSE study. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level Health State Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). Patient-level data for healthcare use and costs were obtained from administrative registers, taking a healthcare perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated for a 12-month follow-up and compared to a societal willingness-to-pay range of €/QALY 27,067-81,200 (NOK 275,000-825,000). Because of a capacity issue in a primary care resulting in extended hospital stays, a subgroup analysis was carried out for non-long and long stayers with hospitalizations < 14 days or ≥ 14 days.ResultsMean QALYs were 0.023 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.022-0.025] higher and mean healthcare costs were €4429 [95% CI - 1101 to 11,926] higher for the intervention group in a full population analysis. This produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €192,565/QALY. For the subgroup analysis, mean QALYs were 0.067 [95% CI 0.066-0.070, n = 222] and - 0.101 [95% CI - 0.035 to 0.048, n = 63] for the intervention group in the non-long stayers and long stayers, respectively. Corresponding mean costs were €- 824 [95% CI - 3869 to 2066] and €1992 [95% CI - 17,964 to 18,811], respectively. The intervention dominated standard care for the non-long stayers with a probability of cost effectiveness of 93.1-99.2% for the whole willingness-to-pay range and 67.8% at a zero willingness to pay. Hospitalizations were the main cost driver, and readmissions contributed the most to the cost difference between the groups.ConclusionsAccording to societal willingness-to-pay thresholds, the medication optimization intervention was not cost effective compared to standard care for the full population. The intervention dominated standard care for the non-long stayers, with a high probability of cost effectiveness.Clinical trial registrationThe IMMENSE trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on 28 June, 2016 before enrolment started (NCT02816086).

Project description:IntroductionIt is important to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of alternative services to traditional cardiac rehabilitation while the economic credentials of the Smartphone Cardiac Rehabilitation, Assisted self-Management (SCRAM) programme among people with coronary heart disease (CHD) are unknown. This economic protocol outlines the methods for undertaking a trial-based economic evaluation of SCRAM in the real-world setting in Australia.Methods and analysisThe within-trial economic evaluation will be undertaken alongside a randomised controlled trial (RCT) designed to determine the effectiveness of SCRAM in comparison with the usual care cardiac rehabilitation (UC) alone in people with CHD. Pathway analysis will be performed to identify all the costs related to the delivery of SCRAM and UC. Both a healthcare system and a limited societal perspective will be adopted to gauge all costs associated with health resource utilisation and productivity loss. Healthcare resource use over the 6-month participation period will be extracted from administrative databases (ie, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Medical Benefits Schedule). Productivity loss will be measured by absenteeism from work (valued by human capital approach). The primary outcomes for the economic evaluation are maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max, mL/kg/min, primary RCT outcome) and quality-adjusted life years estimated from health-related quality of life as assessed by the Assessment of Quality of Life-8D instrument. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be calculated using the differences in costs and benefits (ie, primary and secondary outcomes) between the two randomised groups from both perspectives with no discounting. All costs will be valued in Australian dollars for year 2020.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved under Australia's National Mutual Acceptance agreement by the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/MH/119). It is anticipated that SCRAM is a cost-effective cardiac telerehabilitation programme for people with CHD from both a healthcare and a limited societal perspective in Australia. The evaluation will provide evidence to underpin national scale-up of the programme to a wider population. The results of the economic analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001458224).

Project description:BackgroundCongenital heart conditions are among the most common non-communicable diseases in children and young people (CYP), affecting 13.9 million CYP globally. While survival rates are increasing, support for young people adjusting to life with a heart condition is lacking. Furthermore, one in three CYP with heart conditions also experiences anxiety, depression or adjustment disorder, for which little support is offered. While adults are offered cardiac rehabilitation (CR) to support their mental and physical health, this is not offered for CYP.One way to overcome this is to evaluate a CR programme comprising exercise with mental health support (CardioActive; CA) for CYP with heart conditions. The exercise and mental health components are informed by the metacognitive model, which has been shown to be effective in treating anxiety and depression in CYP and associated with improving psychological outcomes in adult CR.Method and analysisThe study is a single-blind parallel randomised feasibility trial comparing a CR programme (CA) plus usual care against usual care alone with 100 CYP (50 per arm) aged 11-16 diagnosed with a heart condition. CA will include six group exercise, lifestyle and mental health modules. Usual care consists of routine outpatient management. Participants will be assessed at three time points: baseline, 3-month (post-treatment) and 6-month follow-up. Primary outcomes are feasibility and acceptability (ie, referral rates, recruitment and retention rates, attendance at the intervention, rate of return and level of completion of follow-up data). Coprimary symptom outcomes (Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire and Paediatric Quality of Life) and a range of secondary outcomes will be administered at each time point. A nested qualitative study will investigate CYP, parents and healthcare staff views of CR and its components, and staff's experience of delivering CA. Preliminary health economic data will be collected to inform future cost-effectiveness analyses. Descriptive data on study processes and clinical outcomes will be reported. Data analysis will follow intention to treat. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis and the theoretical framework of acceptability.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was granted on 14 February 2023 by the Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (22/NW/0367). The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and local dissemination.Trial registration numberISRCTN50031147; NCT05968521.

Project description:Aim Although cardiac rehabilitation improves physical fitness after a cardiac event, many eligible patients do not participate in cardiac rehabilitation and the beneficial effects of cardiac rehabilitation are often not maintained over time. Home-based training with telemonitoring guidance could improve participation rates and enhance long-term effectiveness. Methods and results We randomised 90 low-to-moderate cardiac risk patients entering cardiac rehabilitation to three months of either home-based training with telemonitoring guidance or centre-based training. Although training adherence was similar between groups, satisfaction was higher in the home-based group ( p?=?0.02). Physical fitness improved at discharge ( p?<?0.01) and at one-year follow-up ( p?<?0.01) in both groups, without differences between groups (home-based p?=?0.31 and centre-based p?=?0.87). Physical activity levels did not change during the one-year study period (centre-based p?=?0.38, home-based p?=?0.80). Healthcare costs were statistically non-significantly lower in the home-based group (€437 per patient, 95% confidence interval -562 to 1436, p?=?0.39). From a societal perspective, a statistically non-significant difference of €3160 per patient in favour of the home-based group was found (95% confidence interval -460 to 6780, p?=?0.09) and the probability that it was more cost-effective varied between 97% and 75% (willingness-to-pay of €0 and €100,000 per quality-adjusted life-years, respectively). Conclusion We found no differences between home-based training with telemonitoring guidance and centre-based training on physical fitness, physical activity level or health-related quality of life. However, home-based training was associated with a higher patient satisfaction and appears to be more cost-effective than centre-based training. We conclude that home-based training with telemonitoring guidance can be used as an alternative to centre-based training for low-to-moderate cardiac risk patients entering cardiac rehabilitation.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The aim of our study was to perform an economic assessment in order to check whether or not telemonitoring of users with pacemakers offers a cost-effective alternative to traditional follow-up in outpatient clinics. METHODS:We used effectiveness and cost data from the NORDLAND trial, which is a controlled, randomized, non-masked clinical trial. Fifty patients were assigned to receive either telemonitoring (TM; n = 25) or conventional monitoring (CM; n = 25) and were followed up for 12 months after the implantation. A cost-utility analysis was performed in terms of additional costs per additional Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) attained from the perspectives of the Norwegian National Healthcare System and patients and their caregivers. RESULTS:Effectiveness was similar between alternatives (TM: 0.7804 [CI: 0.6864 to 0.8745] vs. CM: 0.7465 [CI: 0.6543 to 0.8387]), while cost per patient was higher in the RM group, both from the Norwegian NHS perspective (TM: €2,079.84 [CI: 0.00 to 4,610.58] vs. €271.97 [CI: 158.18 to 385.76]; p = 0.147) and including the patient/family perspective (TM: €2,295.91 [CI: 0.00 to 4,843.28] vs. CM: €430.39 [CI: 0.00 to 4,841.48]), although these large differences-mainly due to a few patients being hospitalized in the TM group, as opposed to none in the CM group-did not reach statistical significance. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) from the Norwegian NHS perspective (€53,345.27/QALY) and including the patient/caregiver perspective (€55,046.40/QALY), as well as the Incremental Net Benefit (INB), favors the CM alternative, albeit with very broad 95%CIs. The probabilistic analysis confirmed inconclusive results due to the wide CIs even suggesting that TM was not cost-effective in this study. Supplemental analysis excluding the hospitalization costs shows positive INBs, whereby suggesting a discrete superiority of the RM alternative if hospitalization costs were not considered, albeit also with broad CIs. CONCLUSIONS:Cost-utility analysis of TM vs. CM shows inconclusive results because of broad confidence intervals with ICER and INB figures ranging from potential savings to high costs for an additional QALY, with the majority of ICERs being above the usual NHS thresholds for coverage decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02237404.

Dataset Information

Shared care versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation: a cost-utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Shared care versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation: a cost-utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets