BMJ open · 2024
Cost-effectiveness of metacognitive therapy for cardiac rehabilitation participants with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression: analysis of a randomised controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shields Gemma E, Camacho Elizabeth, Davies Linda M, Doherty Patrick Joseph, Reeves David, Capobianco Lora, Heagerty Anthony, Heal Calvin, Buck Deborah, Wells Adrian
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is increasing. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a complex intervention offered to patients with CVD, following a heart event, diagnosis or intervention, and it aims to reduce mortality and morbidity. The objective of this within-trial economic evaluation was to compare the cost-effectiveness of metacognitive therapy (MCT) plus usual care (UC) to UC, from a health and social care perspective in the UK.
METHODS: A multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN74643496) was conducted in the UK involving 332 patients with CR with elevated symptoms of anxiety and/or depression and compared group-based MCT with UC. The primary outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The time horizon of the primary analysis was a 12-month follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Uncertainty was explored by probabilistic bootstrapping. Sensitivity analyses tested the impact of the study design and assumptions on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
RESULTS: In the primary cost-effectiveness analysis, MCT intervention was dominant, with a cost-saving (net cost -£219; 95% CI -£1446, £1007) and QALY gains (net QALY 0.015; 95% CI -0.015, 0.045). However, there is a high level of uncertainty in the estimates. At a threshold of £30 000 per QALY, MCT intervention of around 76% was likely to be cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that intervention may be cost-saving and health-increasing; however, findings are uncertain and subject to limitations. Further research should aim to reduce the uncertainty in the findings (eg, with larger sample sizes) and explore potential longer-term economic benefits associated with MCT in this setting.
METHODS: A multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN74643496) was conducted in the UK involving 332 patients with CR with elevated symptoms of anxiety and/or depression and compared group-based MCT with UC. The primary outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The time horizon of the primary analysis was a 12-month follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Uncertainty was explored by probabilistic bootstrapping. Sensitivity analyses tested the impact of the study design and assumptions on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
RESULTS: In the primary cost-effectiveness analysis, MCT intervention was dominant, with a cost-saving (net cost -£219; 95% CI -£1446, £1007) and QALY gains (net QALY 0.015; 95% CI -0.015, 0.045). However, there is a high level of uncertainty in the estimates. At a threshold of £30 000 per QALY, MCT intervention of around 76% was likely to be cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that intervention may be cost-saving and health-increasing; however, findings are uncertain and subject to limitations. Further research should aim to reduce the uncertainty in the findings (eg, with larger sample sizes) and explore potential longer-term economic benefits associated with MCT in this setting.