Dataset Information

Prehabilitation for medically frail patients undergoing surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the potential cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation in medically frail patients undergoing surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

Methods

We created a cost-effectiveness model evaluating the impact of prehabilitation on a cohort of medically frail women undergoing primary surgical intervention for EOC. Cost was assessed from the healthcare system perspective via (1) inpatient charges from 2018–2019 institutional Diagnostic Related Grouping data for surgeries with and without major complications; (2) nursing facility costs from published market surveys. Major complication and non-home discharge rates were estimated from the literature. Based on published pilot studies, prehabilitation was determined to decrease these rates. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for cost per life year saved utilized a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/life year. Modeling was performed with TreeAge software.

Results

In a cohort of 4,415 women, prehabilitation would cost $371.1 Million (M) versus $404.9 M for usual care, a cost saving of $33.8 M/year. Cost of care per patient with prehabilitation was $84,053; usual care was $91,713. When analyzed for cost-effectiveness, usual care was dominated by prehabilitation, indicating prehabilitation was associated with both increased effectiveness and decreased cost compared with usual care. Sensitivity analysis showed prehabilitation was more cost effective up to a cost of intervention of $9,418/patient.

Conclusion

Prehabilitation appears to be a cost-saving method to decrease healthcare system costs via two improved outcomes: lower complication rates and decreased care facility requirements. It represents a novel strategy to optimize healthcare efficiency. Prospective studies should be performed to better characterize these interventions in medically frail patients with EOC. Synopsis Prehabilitation cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for medically frail epithelial ovarian cancer patients undergoing surgery. It was cost-saving for the healthcare system via lower complication rates and discharge care requirements. Prehabilitation was cost effective up to a cost of $9,418/patient.

SUBMITTER: Dholakia J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8550928 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionUndergoing major surgery can induce physical and functional decline. Prehabilitation programmes aim to improve physical fitness and function preoperatively and could enhance postoperative recovery and outcomes. Prehabilitation interventions have been utilised across a range of orthopaedic populations of all ages and can be multimodal in nature. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery including day surgery procedures. It will also investigate the components of prehabilitation to understand optimum duration and frequency of programmes.Methods/designSystematic review and meta-analysis designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive electronic search will be performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, Embase, PEDro and Cochrane CENTRAL databases in order to identify randomised control trials published between January 2000 to 25 March 2019. ISI Web of Science, System for information on grey literature and the European Union clinical trials registry will identify studies that are underway or unpublished. Two independent reviewers will carry out the searches, study selection (title and abstract and full text stages), data extraction, risk of bias assessment (Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0) and evaluation of overall strength of evidence. Meta-analyses will be used for data which demonstrates homogeneity, otherwise a narrative synthesis will be performed for groups of studies of high heterogeneity (I2 >50%). The overall strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThis study raises no ethical issues. This study aims to identify the effectiveness of prehabilitation interventions and may assist clinicians in determining which components, duration, frequency and the method of delivery would form the most effective prehabilitation intervention for patients undergoing an orthopaedic surgical procedure. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations.Prospero registration numberCRD42019123268.

Project description:BackgroundFor older, frail adults, exercise before surgery through prehabilitation (prehab) may hasten return recovery and reduce postoperative complications. We developed a smartwatch-based prehab program (BeFitMe) for older adults that encourages and tracks at-home exercise. The objective of this study was to assess patient perceptions about facilitators and barriers to prehab generally and to using a smartwatch prehab program among older adult thoracic surgery patients to optimize future program implementation.MethodsWe recruited patients, aged ≥50 years who had or were having surgery and were screened for frailty (Fried's Frailty Phenotype) at a thoracic surgery clinic at a single academic institution. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone after obtaining informed consent. Participants were given a description of the BeFitMe program. The interview questions were informed by The Five "Rights" of Clinical Decision-Making framework (Information, Person, Time, Channel, and Format) and sought to identify the factors perceived to influence smartwatch prehab program participation. Interview transcripts were transcribed and independently coded to identify themes in for each of the Five "Rights" domains.ResultsA total of 29 interviews were conducted. Participants were 52% men (n = 15), 48% Black (n = 14), and 59% pre-frail (n = 11) or frail (n = 6) with a mean age of 68 ± 9 years. Eleven total themes emerged. Facilitator themes included the importance of providers (right person) clearly explaining the significance of prehab (right information) during the preoperative visit (right time); providing written instructions and exercise prescriptions; and providing a preprogrammed and set-up (right format) Apple Watch (right channel). Barrier themes included pre-existing conditions and disinterest in exercise and/or technology. Participants provided suggestions to overcome the technology barrier, which included individualized training and support on usage and responsibilities.ConclusionsThis study reports the perceived facilitators and barriers to a smartwatch-based prehab program for pre-frail and frail thoracic surgery patients. The future BeFitMe implementation protocol must ensure surgical providers emphasize the beneficial impact of participating in prehab before surgery and provide a written prehab prescription; must include a thorough guide on smartwatch use along with the preprogrammed device to be successful. The findings are relevant to other smartwatch-based interventions for older adults.

Project description:BackgroundPrehabilitation aims at enhancing patients' functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs' results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect.ResultsWe included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost-benefit analyses, 12 cost-consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective.ConclusionsWe found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020182813.

Project description:BackgroundPrehabilitation is a promising modality for improving patient-related outcomes after major surgery; however, very little research has been done for those who may need it the most: the elderly and the frail. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of a short course multimodal prehabilitation prior to primary surgery in high-risk, frail patients with colorectal cancer and WHO performance status I and II.MethodsThe study was conducted as a single-center, prospective one-arm feasibility study of eight patients with colon cancer between October 4, 2018, and January 14, 2019. The intervention consisted of a physical training program tailored to the patients with both high-intensity interval training and resistance training three times a week in sessions of approximately 1 h in length, for a duration of at least 4 weeks, nutritional support with protein and vitamins, a consultation with a dietician, and medical optimization prior to surgery. Feasibility was evaluated regarding recruitment, retention, compliance and adherence, acceptability, and safety. Retention was evaluated as the number of patients that completed the intervention, with a feasibility goal of 75% completing the intervention. Compliance with the high-intensity training was evaluated as the number of sessions in which the patient achieved a minimum of 4 min > 90% of their maximum heart rate and adherence as the attended out of the offered training sessions.ResultsDuring the study period, 64 patients were screened for eligibility, and out of nine eligible patients, eight patients were included and seven completed the intervention (mean age 80, range 66-88). Compliance to the high-intensity interval training using 90% of maximum heart rate as the monitor of intensity was difficult to measure in several patients; however, adherence to the training sessions was 87%. Compliance with nutritional support was 57%. Half the patients felt somewhat overwhelmed by the multiple appointments and six out of seven reported difficulties with the dosage of protein.ConclusionsThis one-arm feasibility study indicates that multimodal prehabilitation including high-intensity interval training can be performed by patients with colorectal cancer and WHO performance status I and II.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov : the study current feasibility study was conducted prior to the initiation of a full ongoing randomized trial registered by NCT04167436; date of registration: November 18, 2019. Retrospectively registered. No separate prospectively registration of the feasibility trial was conducted but outlined by the approved study protocol (Danish Scientific Ethical Committee SJ-607).

Project description:BackgroundEnhanced recovery after surgery protocols increasingly use multimodal analgesia after major surgeries with intravenous acetaminophen and ketorolac, despite no documented cost-effectiveness of these strategies.AimsThe goal of this prospective cohort study was to model cost-effectiveness of adding acetaminophen or acetaminophen + ketorolac to opioids for postoperative outcomes in children having scoliosis surgery.MethodsOf 106 postsurgical children, 36 received only opioids, 26 received intravenous acetaminophen, and 44 received acetaminophen + ketorolac as analgesia adjuncts. Costs were calculated in 2015 US $. Decision analytic model was constructed with Decision Maker® software. Base-case and sensitivity analyses were performed with effectiveness defined as avoidance of opioid adverse effects.ResultsThe groups were comparable demographically. Compared with opioids-only strategy, subjects in the intravenous acetaminophen + ketorolac strategy consumed less opioids (P = .002; difference in mean morphine consumption on postoperative days 1 and 2 was -0.44 mg/kg (95% CI -0.72 to -0.16); tolerated meals earlier (P < .001; RR 0.250 (0.112-0.556)) and had less constipation (P < .001; RR 0.226 (0.094-0.546)). Base-case analysis showed that of the 3 strategies, use of opioids alone is both most costly and least effective, opioids + intravenous acetaminophen is intermediate in both cost and effectiveness; and opioids + intravenous acetaminophen and ketorolac is the least expensive and most effective strategy. The addition of intravenous acetaminophen with or without ketorolac to an opioid-only strategy saves $510-$947 per patient undergoing spine surgery and decreases opioid side effects.ConclusionIntravenous acetaminophen with or without ketorolac reduced opioid consumption, opioid-related adverse effects, length of stay, and thereby cost of care following idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents compared with opioids-alone postoperative analgesia strategy.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of cardiac output monitoring to guide intra-venous fluid and inotropic therapies may improve peri-operative outcomes, but uncertainty exists regarding clinical effectiveness and robust cost-effectiveness evidence is lacking. The objective of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of peri-operative cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy versus usual care in high-risk patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery.MethodsThe study undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multi-centre randomised trial that recruited patients from 17 hospitals in the United Kingdom. The trial compared cardiac output-guided, haemodynamic therapy algorithm for intra-venous fluid and inotrope (dopexamine) infusion during and 6 h following surgery, with usual care. Resource use and outcome data on 734 high-risk trial patients aged over 50 years undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery were used to report cost-effectiveness at 6 months and to project lifetime cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness analysis used information on health-related quality of life (QoL) at randomisation, 30 days, and 6 months combined with information on vital status to report quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Each QALY was valued using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended threshold of willingness to pay (£20,000 per QALY) in conjunction with the costs of each group to report the incremental net monetary benefits (INB) of the treatment algorithm versus usual care.ResultsThe mean [SD] quality of life at 30 days and 6 months was similar between the treatment groups (at 6 months, intervention group 0.73 [0.28] versus usual care group 0.71 [0.30]; mean gain 0.03 [95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.08]). At 6 months, survival, mean QALYs and mean healthcare costs (intervention group £8574 versus usual care group £8974) were also similar. At the cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the incremental net benefit of haemodynamic therapy over the patients' lifetime was positive (£4168 [95 % CI -£3063 to £11,398]). This corresponds to an 87 % probability that this intervention is cost-effective.ConclusionsCardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy algorithm was associated with an average cost reduction and improvement in QALY and is likely to be cost-effective. Further research is needed to confirm the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this treatment.Trial registrationISRCTN04386758.