Neil Oldridge1, Rod S Taylor2,3. 1. College of Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA. 2. Institute of Health and Well Being, University of Glasgow, UK. 3. Institute of Health Services Research, University of Exeter Medical School, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: Prescribed exercise is effective in adults with coronary heart disease (CHD), chronic heart failure (CHF), intermittent claudication, body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2, hypertension or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the evidence for its cost-effectiveness is limited, shows large variations and is partly contradictory. Using World Health Organization and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology value for money thresholds, we report the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy, exercise training and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for incremental cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-utility ratios and/or the probability of cost-effectiveness of exercise prescribed as therapy in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1 July 2008 and 28 October 2018. RESULTS: Of 19 incremental cost-utility ratios reported in 15 RCTs in patients with CHD, CHF, intermittent claudication or BMI ≥25 kg/m2, 63% met both value for money thresholds as 'highly cost-effective' or 'high value', with 26% 'not cost-effective' or of 'low value'. The probability of intervention cost-effectiveness ranged from 23 to 100%, probably due to the different populations, interventions and comparators reported in the individual RCTs. Confirmation with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting checklist varied widely across the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review support the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with CHD, CHF, BMI ≥25 kg/m2 or intermittent claudication, but, with concerns about reporting standards, need further confirmation. No eligible economic evaluation based on RCTs was identified in patients with hypertension or T2DM.
AIMS: Prescribed exercise is effective in adults with coronary heart disease (CHD), chronic heart failure (CHF), intermittent claudication, body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2, hypertension or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the evidence for its cost-effectiveness is limited, shows large variations and is partly contradictory. Using World Health Organization and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology value for money thresholds, we report the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy, exercise training and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for incremental cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-utility ratios and/or the probability of cost-effectiveness of exercise prescribed as therapy in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1 July 2008 and 28 October 2018. RESULTS: Of 19 incremental cost-utility ratios reported in 15 RCTs in patients with CHD, CHF, intermittent claudication or BMI ≥25 kg/m2, 63% met both value for money thresholds as 'highly cost-effective' or 'high value', with 26% 'not cost-effective' or of 'low value'. The probability of intervention cost-effectiveness ranged from 23 to 100%, probably due to the different populations, interventions and comparators reported in the individual RCTs. Confirmation with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting checklist varied widely across the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review support the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with CHD, CHF, BMI ≥25 kg/m2 or intermittent claudication, but, with concerns about reporting standards, need further confirmation. No eligible economic evaluation based on RCTs was identified in patients with hypertension or T2DM.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost-effectiveness; body mass index; cardiac rehabilitation; chronic heart failure; coronary heart disease; exercise; hypertension; intermittent claudication; systematic reviews; type 2 diabetes mellitus
Authors: Sara Ortolan; Daniel Neunhaeuserer; Giulia Quinto; Barbara Barra; Anna Centanini; Francesca Battista; Marco Vecchiato; Valentina De Marchi; Martina Celidoni; Vincenzo Rebba; Andrea Ermolao Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Francisco José Ferrer-Sargues; Óscar Fabregat-Andrés; Isabel Martínez-Hurtado; Pablo Salvador-Coloma; Francisco José Martínez-Olmos; Marta Lluesma-Vidal; Gemma Biviá-Roig; María José Segrera-Rovira; María Dolores Arguisuelas; Noemí Valtueña-Gimeno Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: José-Manuel Pastora-Bernal; Joaquín-Jesús Hernández-Fernández; María-José Estebanez-Pérez; Guadalupe Molina-Torres; Francisco-José García-López; Rocío Martín-Valero Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Eduardo M Vilela; Ricardo Ladeiras-Lopes; Ana Joao; Joana Braga; Susana Torres; Sofia Viamonte; José Ribeiro; Madalena Teixeira; José P Nunes; Ricardo Fontes-Carvalho Journal: World J Cardiol Date: 2021-12-26
Authors: Cornelia Anne Barth; Maggie Donovan-Hall; Catherine Blake; Noor Jahan Akhtar; Joseph Martial Capo-Chichi; Cliona O'Sullivan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Heinz Drexel; Arthur Mader; Christoph H Saely; Gerda Tautermann; Jörn F Dopheide; Alexander Vonbank Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Gabriela Lima de Melo Ghisi; Zhiming Xu; Xia Liu; Ana Mola; Robyn Gallagher; Abraham Samuel Babu; Colin Yeung; Susan Marzolini; John Buckley; Paul Oh; Aashish Contractor; Sherry L Grace Journal: Glob Heart Date: 2021-06-10
Authors: Gabriela Lima de Melo Ghisi; Sherry L Grace; Claudia V Anchique; Ximena Gordillo; Rosalía Fernandez; Daniel Quesada; Blanca Arrieta Loaiciga; Patricia Reyes; Elena Chaparro; Renzo Soca Meza; Julia Fernandez Coronado; Marco Heredia Ñahui; Rocio Palomino Vilchez; Paul Oh Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2020-10-13