Expert review of cardiovascular therapy · 2020
Cost-utility analysis of home-based cardiac rehabilitation as compared to usual post-discharge care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Bakhshayesh Samaneh, Hoseini Benyamin, Bergquist Robert, Nabovati Ehsan, Gholoobi Arash, Mohammad-Ebrahimi Shahab, Eslami Saeid
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Determining cost-utility differences between home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) on the one hand, and usual post-discharge care (UC) on the other, can improve resource-allocation in healthcare settings.
AREAS COVERED: In June 2019, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled HBCR trials. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) of cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between HBCRs and UCs were calculated using random effect models. Heterogeneity was assessed by inconsistency index (I2) and publication bias by funnel plot and Egger's regression test. Thirteen articles, representing 2,992 participants, were deemed representative for final analysis. In the meta-analysis, a significant difference with respect to QALYs favored HBCR, while no significant cost difference was observed between HBCR and UC. However, subgroup-analysis of trials with different follow-up durations revealed somewhat different results, and HBCR was found to be significantly better with regard to both cost and QALYs for patients with heart failure. Cost-utility analysis categorizing interventions as 'dominant', 'effective', 'doubtful', and 'dominated', found HBCRs dominant.
EXPERT OPINION: Although HBCR tended to be superior compared to UC in this review, larger and more robust trials addressing specific patients groups are needed for definitive results.
AREAS COVERED: In June 2019, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled HBCR trials. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) of cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between HBCRs and UCs were calculated using random effect models. Heterogeneity was assessed by inconsistency index (I2) and publication bias by funnel plot and Egger's regression test. Thirteen articles, representing 2,992 participants, were deemed representative for final analysis. In the meta-analysis, a significant difference with respect to QALYs favored HBCR, while no significant cost difference was observed between HBCR and UC. However, subgroup-analysis of trials with different follow-up durations revealed somewhat different results, and HBCR was found to be significantly better with regard to both cost and QALYs for patients with heart failure. Cost-utility analysis categorizing interventions as 'dominant', 'effective', 'doubtful', and 'dominated', found HBCRs dominant.
EXPERT OPINION: Although HBCR tended to be superior compared to UC in this review, larger and more robust trials addressing specific patients groups are needed for definitive results.