S S Tan1, C H Teirlinck2, J Dekker3, L M A Goossens4, A M Bohnen5, J A N Verhaar6, P P van Es7, B W Koes8, S M A Bierma-Zeinstra9, P A J Luijsterburg10, M A Koopmanschap11. 1. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Institute for Medical Technology Assessment & Institute of Health Policy and Management, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.s.tan@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Department of General Practice, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.teirlinck@erasmusmc.nl. 3. VU University Medical Center, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine & EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.dekker@vumc.nl. 4. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Institute for Medical Technology Assessment & Institute of Health Policy and Management, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: goossens@bmg.eur.nl. 5. Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Department of General Practice, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.bohnen@erasmusmc.nl. 6. Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedics, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.verhaar@erasmusmc.nl. 7. Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Department of General Practice, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: p.vanes@gmail.com. 8. Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Department of General Practice, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: b.koes@erasmusmc.nl. 9. Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Department of General Practice, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedics, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.bierma-zeinstra@erasmusmc.nl. 10. Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Department of General Practice, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: p.luijsterburg@erasmusmc.nl. 11. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Institute for Medical Technology Assessment & Institute of Health Policy and Management, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: koopmanschap@bmg.eur.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of exercise therapy (intervention group) compared to 'general practitioner (GP) care' (control group) in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care. METHOD: This cost-utility analysis was conducted with 120 GPs in the Netherlands from the societal and healthcare perspective. Data on direct medical costs, productivity costs and quality of life (QoL) was collected using standardised questionnaires which were sent to the patients at baseline and at 6, 13, 26, 39 and 52 weeks follow-up. All costs were based on Euro 2011 cost data. RESULTS:A total of 203 patients were included. The annual direct medical costs per patient were significantly lower for the intervention group (€ 1233) compared to the control group (€ 1331). The average annual societal costs per patient were lower in the intervention group (€ 2634 vs € 3241). Productivity costs were higher than direct medical costs. There was a very small adjusted difference in QoL of 0.006 in favour of the control group (95% CI: -0.04 to +0.02). CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that exercise therapy is probably cost saving, without the risk of noteworthy negative health effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR1462.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of exercise therapy (intervention group) compared to 'general practitioner (GP) care' (control group) in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care. METHOD: This cost-utility analysis was conducted with 120 GPs in the Netherlands from the societal and healthcare perspective. Data on direct medical costs, productivity costs and quality of life (QoL) was collected using standardised questionnaires which were sent to the patients at baseline and at 6, 13, 26, 39 and 52 weeks follow-up. All costs were based on Euro 2011 cost data. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients were included. The annual direct medical costs per patient were significantly lower for the intervention group (€ 1233) compared to the control group (€ 1331). The average annual societal costs per patient were lower in the intervention group (€ 2634 vs € 3241). Productivity costs were higher than direct medical costs. There was a very small adjusted difference in QoL of 0.006 in favour of the control group (95% CI: -0.04 to +0.02). CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that exercise therapy is probably cost saving, without the risk of noteworthy negative health effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR1462.
Authors: Corelien J J Kloek; Johanna M van Dongen; Dinny H de Bakker; Daniël Bossen; Joost Dekker; Cindy Veenhof Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-08-31 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Tim Pelle; Karen Bevers; Frank van den Hoogen; Job van der Palen; Cornelia van den Ende Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 5.178