Open heart · 2020
Cost-utility analysis of learning and coping versus standard education in cardiac rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial with 3 years of follow-up.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Tayyari Dehbarez Nasrin, Palmhøj Nielsen Camilla, Risør Bettine Wulff, Vinther Nielsen Claus, Lynggaard Vibeke
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To enhance adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR), a patient education programme called 'learning and coping' (LC-programme) was implemented in three hospitals in Denmark. The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-utility of the LC-programme compared with the standard CR-programme.
METHODS: 825 patients with ischaemic heart disease or heart failure were randomised to the LC-programme or the standard CR-programme and were followed for 3 years.A societal cost perspective was applied and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were based on SF-6D measurements. Multiple imputation technique was used to handle missing data on the SF-6D. The statistical analyses were based on means and bootstrapped SEs. Regression framework was employed to estimate the net benefit and to illustrate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the two programmes in total societal costs (4353 Euros; 95% CI -3828 to 12 533) or in QALY (-0.006; 95% CI -0.053 to 0.042). At a threshold of 40 000 Euros, the LC-programme was found to be cost-effective at 15% probability; however, for patients with heart failure, due to increased cost savings, the probability of cost-effectiveness increased to 91%.
CONCLUSIONS: While the LC-programme did not appear to be cost-effective in CR, important heterogeneity was noted for subgroups of patients. The LC-programme was demonstrated to increase adherence to the rehabilitation programme and to be cost-effective among patients with heart failure. However, further research is needed to study the dynamic value of heterogeneity due to the small sample size in this subgroup.
METHODS: 825 patients with ischaemic heart disease or heart failure were randomised to the LC-programme or the standard CR-programme and were followed for 3 years.A societal cost perspective was applied and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were based on SF-6D measurements. Multiple imputation technique was used to handle missing data on the SF-6D. The statistical analyses were based on means and bootstrapped SEs. Regression framework was employed to estimate the net benefit and to illustrate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the two programmes in total societal costs (4353 Euros; 95% CI -3828 to 12 533) or in QALY (-0.006; 95% CI -0.053 to 0.042). At a threshold of 40 000 Euros, the LC-programme was found to be cost-effective at 15% probability; however, for patients with heart failure, due to increased cost savings, the probability of cost-effectiveness increased to 91%.
CONCLUSIONS: While the LC-programme did not appear to be cost-effective in CR, important heterogeneity was noted for subgroups of patients. The LC-programme was demonstrated to increase adherence to the rehabilitation programme and to be cost-effective among patients with heart failure. However, further research is needed to study the dynamic value of heterogeneity due to the small sample size in this subgroup.