Shared care versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation: a cost-utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial

Jannik B Bertelsen, Nasrin Tayyari Dehbarez, Jens Refsgaard, Helle Kanstrup, Søren P Johnsen, Ina Qvist, Bo Christensen, Rikke Søgaard, Kent L Christensen, Jannik B Bertelsen, Nasrin Tayyari Dehbarez, Jens Refsgaard, Helle Kanstrup, Søren P Johnsen, Ina Qvist, Bo Christensen, Rikke Søgaard, Kent L Christensen

Abstract

Background: Changes in the organisation of chronic healthcare, an increased awareness of costs and challenges of low adherence in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) call for the exploration of more flexible CR programmes as alternatives to hospital-based CR (H-CR). A model of shared care cardiac rehabilitation (SC-CR) that included general practitioners and the municipality was developed. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost utility of SC-CR versus H-CR.

Methods: The cost-utility analysis was based on a randomised controlled trial of 212 patients who were allocated to SC-CR or H-CR and followed up for 12 months. A societal cost perspective was applied that included the cost of intervention, informal time, healthcare and productivity loss. Costing was based on a microcosting approach for the intervention and on national administrative registries for the other cost categories. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on the EuroQol 5-Dimensions measurements at baseline, after 4 months and after 12 months. Conventional cost-effectiveness methodology was employed to estimate the net benefit of SC-CR.

Results: The average cost of SC-CR was 165.5 kDKK and H-CR 163 kDKK. Productivity loss comprised 74.1kDKK and 65.9 kDKK. SC-CR cost was an additional 2.5 kDKK (95% CI -38.1 to 43.1) ≈ (0.33; -5.1 to 5.8 k€) and a QALY gain of 0.02 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.06). The probability that SC-CR would be cost-effective was 59% for a threshold value of willingness to pay of 300 kDKK (k€40.3).

Conclusion: CR after shared care model and H-CR are comparable and similar in socioeconomic terms.

Trial registration number: NCT01522001; Results.

Keywords: acute coronary syndrome; cardiac rehabilitation; cost-utility; randomised controlled trial; shared care.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consequences of shared care cardiac rehabilitation. Bootstrapped difference in costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY).
Figure 2
Figure 2
The probability that shared care cardiac rehabilitation will be cost-effective over hospital cardiac rehabilitation.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The probability of cost-effectiveness for alternative analytical scenarios. QALY, quality-adjusted life years.

References

    1. Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H, et al. . European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012). The Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). Eur Heart J 2012;33:1635–701. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs092
    1. Piepoli MF, Corrà U, Benzer W, et al. . Secondary prevention through cardiac rehabilitation: from knowledge to implementation. A position paper from the cardiac rehabilitation section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2010;17:1–17. 10.1097/HJR.0b013e3283313592
    1. Heran BS, Chen JM, Ebrahim S, et al. . Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011:CD001800 10.1002/14651858.CD001800.pub2
    1. Goel K, Lennon RJ, Tilbury RT, et al. . Impact of cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention in the community. Circulation 2011;123:2344–52. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.983536
    1. Suaya JA, Shepard DS, Normand SL, et al. . Use of cardiac rehabilitation by Medicare beneficiaries after myocardial infarction or coronary bypass surgery. Circulation 2007;116:1653–62. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.701466
    1. Beswick AD, Rees K, Griebsch I, et al. . Provision, uptake and cost of cardiac rehabilitation programmes: improving services to under-represented groups. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1–152. 10.3310/hta8410
    1. Cortés O, Arthur HM. Determinants of referral to cardiac rehabilitation programs in patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review. Am Heart J 2006;151:249–56. 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.03.034
    1. Turk-Adawi KI, Oldridge NB, Tarima SS, et al. . Cardiac rehabilitation enrollment among referred patients: patient and organizational factors. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev 2014;34:114–22. 10.1097/HCR.0000000000000017
    1. OECD. Publishing O. OECD reviews of health care quality: Denmark 2013: raising standards: OECD Publishing, 2013. [Epub ahead of print 30 Apr 2013].
    1. Dalal HM, Zawada A, Jolly K, et al. . Home based versus centre based cardiac rehabilitation: cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2010;340:b5631 10.1136/bmj.b5631
    1. Bertelsen JB, Refsgaard J, Kanstrup H, et al. . Hospital-based versus community-based shared care cardiac rehabilitation after acute coronary syndrome: protocol for a randomized clinical trial. Dan Med J 2013;60:A4699.
    1. Bethell H, Lewin R, Dalal H. Cardiac rehabilitation in the United Kingdom. Heart 2009;95:271–5. 10.1136/hrt.2007.134338
    1. Wong WP, Feng J, Pwee KH, et al. . A systematic review of economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:243 10.1186/1472-6963-12-243
    1. Jolly K, Taylor RS, Lip GY, Gyh L, et al. . Home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with centre-based rehabilitation and usual care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2006;111:343–51. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2005.11.002
    1. Bertelsen JB, Refsgaard J, Kanstrup H, et al. . Cardiac rehabilitation after acute coronary syndrome comparing adherence and risk factor modification in a community-based shared care model versus hospital-based care in a randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2017;16:334–43. 10.1177/1474515116666781
    1. Statistics Denmark,
    1. Andersen JS, Olivarius NF, Krasnik A. The Danish national health service register. Scand J Public Health 2011;39:34–7. 10.1177/1403494810394718
    1. Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish national patient register. Scand J Public Health 2011;39:30–3. 10.1177/1403494811401482
    1. Schweikert B, Hahmann H, Leidl R. Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation. Heart 2006;92:62–7. 10.1136/hrt.2004.052787
    1. Wittrup-Jensen KU, Lauridsen J, Gudex C, et al. . Generation of a Danish TTO value set for EQ-5D health states. Scand J Public Health 2009;37:459–66. 10.1177/1403494809105287
    1. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96. 10.1002/hec.944
    1. Efron B, Tibshirani R. [Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy]: rejoinder. Statistical Science 1986;1:77 10.1214/ss/1177013817
    1. Hoch JS, Briggs AH, Willan AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2002;11:415–30. 10.1002/hec.678
    1. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998;18:S68–S80. 10.1177/0272989X98018002S09
    1. Dehbarez NT, Lynggaard V, May O, et al. . Learning and coping strategies versus standard education in cardiac rehabilitation: a cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15:422 10.1186/s12913-015-1072-0
    1. Papadakis S, Oldridge NB, Coyle D, et al. . Economic evaluation of cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2005;12:513–20. 10.1097/00149831-200512000-00001
    1. Taylor RS, Watt A, Dalal HM, et al. . Home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus hospital-based rehabilitation: a cost effectiveness analysis. Int J Cardiol 2007;119:196–201. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.07.218
    1. Jolly K, Lip GY, Taylor RS, et al. . The Birmingham Rehabilitation Uptake Maximisation study (BRUM): a randomised controlled trial comparing home-based with centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Heart 2009;95:36–42. 10.1136/hrt.2007.127209
    1. Marchionni N, Fattirolli F, Fumagalli S, et al. . Improved exercise tolerance and quality of life with cardiac rehabilitation of older patients after myocardial infarction: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Circulation 2003;107:2201–6. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000066322.21016.4A
    1. Zeng W, Stason WB, Fournier S, et al. . Benefits and costs of intensive lifestyle modification programs for symptomatic coronary disease in Medicare beneficiaries. Am Heart J 2013;165:785–92. 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.01.018
    1. Dendale P, Hansen D, Berger J, et al. . Long-term cost-benefit ratio of cardiac rehabilitation after percutaneous coronary intervention. Acta Cardiol 2008;63:451–6. 10.2143/AC.63.4.2033043
    1. Biering K, Nielsen TT, Rasmussen K, et al. . Return to work after percutaneous coronary intervention: the predictive value of self-reported health compared to clinical measures. PLoS One 2012;7:e49268 10.1371/journal.pone.0049268
    1. Krabbe PF, Peerenboom L, Langenhoff BS, et al. . Responsiveness of the generic EQ-5D summary measure compared to the disease-specific EORTC QLQ C-30. Qual Life Res 2004;13:1247–53. 10.1023/B:QURE.0000037498.00754.b8
    1. Hevey D, McGee HM, Horgan J. Responsiveness of health-related quality of life outcome measures in cardiac rehabilitation: comparison of cardiac rehabilitation outcome measures. J Consult Clin Psychol 2004;72:1175–80. 10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.1175
    1. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med Decis Making 2008;28:21–32. 10.1177/0272989X07308751

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren