Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2023
Cost-effectiveness of different exercise intensities during oncological treatment in the Phys-Can RCT.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ax Anna-Karin, Husberg Magnus, Johansson Birgitta, Demmelmaier Ingrid, Berntsen Sveinung, Sjövall Katarina, Börjeson Sussanne, Nordin Karin, Davidson Thomas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness is important in the prioritisation between interventions in health care. Exercise is cost-effective compared to usual care during oncological treatment; however, the significance of exercise intensity to the cost-effectiveness is unclear. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the randomised controlled trial Phys-Can, a six-month exercise programme of high (HI) or low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, based on 189 participants with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer (HI: n = 99 and LMI: n = 90) from the Phys-Can RCT in Sweden. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective, and included cost of the exercise intervention, health care utilisation and productivity loss. Health outcomes were assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using EQ-5D-5L at baseline, post intervention and 12 months after the completion of the intervention.
RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up after the intervention, the total cost per participant did not differ significantly between HI (€27,314) and LMI exercise (€29,788). There was no significant difference in health outcome between the intensity groups. On average HI generated 1.190 QALYs and LMI 1.185 QALYs. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that HI was cost effective compared with LMI, but the uncertainty was large.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that HI and LMI exercise have similar costs and effects during oncological treatment. Hence, based on cost-effectiveness, we suggest that decision makers and clinicians can consider implementing both HI and LMI exercise programmes and recommend either intensity to the patients with cancer during oncological treatment to facilitate improvement of health.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, based on 189 participants with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer (HI: n = 99 and LMI: n = 90) from the Phys-Can RCT in Sweden. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective, and included cost of the exercise intervention, health care utilisation and productivity loss. Health outcomes were assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using EQ-5D-5L at baseline, post intervention and 12 months after the completion of the intervention.
RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up after the intervention, the total cost per participant did not differ significantly between HI (€27,314) and LMI exercise (€29,788). There was no significant difference in health outcome between the intensity groups. On average HI generated 1.190 QALYs and LMI 1.185 QALYs. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that HI was cost effective compared with LMI, but the uncertainty was large.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that HI and LMI exercise have similar costs and effects during oncological treatment. Hence, based on cost-effectiveness, we suggest that decision makers and clinicians can consider implementing both HI and LMI exercise programmes and recommend either intensity to the patients with cancer during oncological treatment to facilitate improvement of health.