M M L van den Houten1, G J Lauret1,2, F Fakhry3,4, H J P Fokkenrood2, A D I van Asselt5,6, M G M Hunink3,4,7, J A W Teijink8,9. 1. Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 2. CAPHRI Research School, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 7. Centre for Health Decision Science, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 8. Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. joep.teijink@cze.nl. 9. CAPHRI Research School, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. joep.teijink@cze.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend supervised exercise therapy (SET) as the preferred initial treatment for patients with intermittent claudication. The availability of SET programmes is, however, limited and such programmes are often not reimbursed. Evidence for the long-term cost-effectiveness of SET compared with endovascular revascularization (ER) as primary treatment for intermittent claudication might aid widespread adoption in clinical practice. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to determine the incremental costs, incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SET versus ER for a hypothetical cohort of patients with newly diagnosed intermittent claudication, from the Dutch healthcare payer's perspective. In the event of primary treatment failure, possible secondary interventions were repeat ER, open revascularization or major amputation. Data sources for model parameters included original data from two RCTs, as well as evidence from the medical literature. The robustness of the results was tested with probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Considering a 5-year time horizon, probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that SET was associated with cost savings compared with ER (-€6412, 95 per cent credibility interval (CrI) -€11 874 to -€1939). The mean difference in effectiveness was -0·07 (95 per cent CrI -0·27 to 0·16) QALYs. ER was associated with an additional €91 600 per QALY gained compared with SET. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated more favourable cost-effectiveness for ER in subsets of patients with low quality-of-life scores at baseline. CONCLUSION:SET is a more cost-effective primary treatment for intermittent claudication than ER. These results support implementation of supervised exercise programmes in clinical practice.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend supervised exercise therapy (SET) as the preferred initial treatment for patients with intermittent claudication. The availability of SET programmes is, however, limited and such programmes are often not reimbursed. Evidence for the long-term cost-effectiveness of SET compared with endovascular revascularization (ER) as primary treatment for intermittent claudication might aid widespread adoption in clinical practice. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to determine the incremental costs, incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SET versus ER for a hypothetical cohort of patients with newly diagnosed intermittent claudication, from the Dutch healthcare payer's perspective. In the event of primary treatment failure, possible secondary interventions were repeat ER, open revascularization or major amputation. Data sources for model parameters included original data from two RCTs, as well as evidence from the medical literature. The robustness of the results was tested with probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Considering a 5-year time horizon, probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that SET was associated with cost savings compared with ER (-€6412, 95 per cent credibility interval (CrI) -€11 874 to -€1939). The mean difference in effectiveness was -0·07 (95 per cent CrI -0·27 to 0·16) QALYs. ER was associated with an additional €91 600 per QALY gained compared with SET. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated more favourable cost-effectiveness for ER in subsets of patients with low quality-of-life scores at baseline. CONCLUSION: SET is a more cost-effective primary treatment for intermittent claudication than ER. These results support implementation of supervised exercise programmes in clinical practice.
Authors: Elke Bouwens; Sanne Klaphake; Karin J Weststrate; Joep Aw Teijink; Hence Jm Verhagen; Sanne E Hoeks; Ellen V Rouwet Journal: Vasc Med Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 3.239
Authors: Marijn Ml van den Houten; Sandra Cp Jansen; Anneroos Sinnige; Lijckle van der Laan; Patrick Whe Vriens; Edith M Willigendael; Jan-Willem Hp Lardenoije; Jan-Willem M Elshof; Eline S van Hattum; Maarten A Lijkwan; Ivan Nyklíček; Ellen V Rouwet; Mark Jw Koelemay; Marc Rm Scheltinga; Joep Aw Teijink Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Katarzyna Kropielnicka; Wioletta Dziubek; Katarzyna Bulińska; Małgorzata Stefańska; Joanna Wojcieszczyk-Latos; Ryszard Jasiński; Urszula Pilch; Grażyna Dąbrowska; Katarzyna Skórkowska-Telichowska; Dariusz Kałka; Agnieszka Janus; Katarzyna Zywar; Rafał Paszkowski; Anna Rachwalik; Marek Woźniewski; Andrzej Szuba Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-09-23 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: T Vromen; R W M Brouwers; H T Jorstad; R A Kraaijenhagen; R F Spee; M E Wittekoek; M J Cramer; J M C van Hal; L Hofstra; P M J C Kuijpers; E C de Melker; S F Rodrigo; M Sunamura; N H M K Uszko-Lencer; H M Kemps Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 2.380