Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of strength exercise or aerobic exercise compared with usual care for patients with knee osteoarthritis: secondary results from a multiarm randomised controlled trial in Norway.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of strength exercise or aerobic exercise compared with usual care for patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA), from a societal and healthcare perspective.

Design

Cost-effectiveness analysis embedded in a three-arm randomised controlled trial.

Participants and setting

A total of 161 people with symptomatic knee OA seeking Norwegian primary or secondary care were included in the analyses.

Interventions

Participants were randomised to either 12 weeks of strength exercise (n=54), 12 weeks of aerobic exercise (n=53) or usual care (n=54).

Outcome measures

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) estimated by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels, and costs related to healthcare utilisation and productivity loss estimated in euros (€), aggregated for 1 year of follow-up. Cost-effectiveness was expressed with mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Bootstrapping was used to estimate ICER uncertainty.

Results

From a 1-year societal perspective, the mean cost per patient was €7954, €8101 and €17 398 in the strength exercise, aerobic exercise and usual care group, respectively. From a 1-year healthcare perspective, the mean cost per patient was €848, €2003 and €1654 in the strength exercise, aerobic exercise and usual care group, respectively. Mean differences in costs significantly favoured strength exercise and aerobic exercise from a 1-year societal perspective and strength exercise from a 1-year healthcare perspective. There were no significant differences in mean QALYs between groups. From a 1-year societal perspective, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €27 500, the probability of strength exercise or aerobic exercise being cost-effective was ≥98%. From a 1-year healthcare perspective, the probability of strength exercise or aerobic exercise being cost-effective was ≥97% and ≥76%, respectively.

Conclusion

From a 1-year societal and healthcare perspective, a 12-week strength exercise or aerobic exercise programme is cost-effective compared with usual care in patients with symptomatic knee OA.

Trial registration number

NCT01682980.

SUBMITTER: Killingmo RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11328638 | biostudies-literature | 2024 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of strength exercise or aerobic exercise compared with usual care for patients with knee osteoarthritis: secondary results from a multiarm randomised controlled trial in Norway.

Killingmo Rikke Munk RM Øiestad Britt Elin BE Risberg May-Arna MA Maas Esther E Grotle Margreth M

BMJ open 20240523 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of strength exercise or aerobic exercise compared with usual care for patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA), from a societal and healthcare perspective.<h4>Design</h4>Cost-effectiveness analysis embedded in a three-arm randomised controlled trial.<h4>Participants and setting</h4>A total of 161 people with symptomatic knee OA seeking Norwegian primary or secondary care were included in the analyses.<h4>Interventions</h4>Par ...[more]

PMID: 38803266

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA stratified approach to exercise therapy may yield superior clinical and economic outcomes, given the large heterogeneity of individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA).ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up of a model of stratified exercise therapy compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee OA, from a societal and healthcare perspective.MethodsAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial in patients with knee OA (n = 335), comparing subgroup-specific exercise therapy for a 'high muscle strength subgroup', 'low muscle strength subgroup', and 'obesity subgroup' supplemented by a dietary intervention for the 'obesity subgroup' (experimental group), with usual ('non-stratified') exercise therapy (control group). Clinical outcomes included quality-adjusted life years - QALYs (EuroQol-5D-5 L), knee pain (Numerical Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in daily living). Costs were measured by self-reported questionnaires at 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Data were analyzed through linear regression. Bootstrapping techniques were applied to estimate statistical uncertainty.ResultsDuring 12-month follow-up, there were no significant between-group differences in clinical outcomes. The total societal costs of the experimental group were on average lower compared to the control group (mean [95% confidence interval]: € 405 [-1728, 918]), albeit with a high level of uncertainty. We found a negligible difference in QALYs between groups (mean [95% confidence interval]: 0.006 [-0.011, 0.023]). The probability of stratified exercise therapy being cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy from the societal perspective was around 73%, regardless of the willingness-to-pay threshold. However, this probability decreased substantially to 50% (willingness-to-pay threshold of €20.000/QALY) when using the healthcare perspective. Similar results were found for knee pain and physical functioning.ConclusionsWe found no clear evidence that stratified exercise therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee OA. However, results should be interpreted with caution as the study power was lower than intended, due to the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundBlended physiotherapy, in which physiotherapy sessions and an online application are integrated, might support patients in taking an active role in the management of their chronic condition and may reduce disease related costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a blended physiotherapy intervention (e-Exercise) compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with osteoarthritis of hip and/or knee, from the societal as well as the healthcare perspective.MethodsThis economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 12-month cluster randomized controlled trial, in which 108 patients received e-Exercise, consisting of physiotherapy sessions and a web-application, and 99 patients received usual physiotherapy. Clinical outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) according to the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3 L), physical functioning (HOOS/KOOS) and physical activity (Actigraph Accelerometer). Costs were measured using self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were multiply imputed and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty.ResultsIntervention costs and medication costs were significantly lower in e-Exercise compared to usual physiotherapy. Total societal costs and total healthcare costs did not significantly differ between groups. No significant differences in effectiveness were found between groups. For physical functioning and physical activity, the maximum probability of e-Exercise being cost-effective compared to usual physiotherapy was moderate (< 0.82) from both perspectives. For QALYs, the probability of e-Exercise being cost-effective compared to usual physiotherapy was 0.68/0.84 at a willingness to pay of 10,000 Euro and 0.70/0.80 at a willingness to pay of 80,000 Euro per gained QALY, from respectively the societal and the healthcare perspective.ConclusionsE-Exercise itself was significantly cheaper compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis, but not cost-effective from the societal- as well as healthcare perspective. The decision between both interventions can be based on the preferences of the patient and the physiotherapist.Trial registrationNTR4224 (25 October 2013).

Project description:Despite an extensive literature on treatment interventions for patients with knee osteoarthritis, studies comparing the efficacy of different exercise interventions and living the life as usual on quality of life, cartilage quality and cost-effectiveness are lacking. The aim of the present study is to compare the efficacy of two different exercise programs compared to a control group in individuals with established radiographic and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis on self-reported knee-related quality of life, knee pain, physical function, and cartilage quality.A three-armed randomized controlled trial involving two exercise interventions and a control group of individuals doing as they usually do is described. The patients will have mild to moderate radiographic osteoarthritis according to the Kellgren and Lawrence classification (grade 2-3), and fulfill the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria, be aged between 45 and 65 years, and have no other serious physical or mental illnesses. The patients will be randomly allocated to a strength exercise group; a cycling group, or a control group. The primary outcome is the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score knee-related quality of life subscale. Secondary outcomes include all five Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales, morphological evaluation of cartilage including focal thickness, subchondral bone marrow edema, proteoglycan content and collagen degradation (measured using magnetic resonance imaging clinical sequences, T2 mapping and T1?), specific serum biomarkers, isokinetic muscle strength, maximal oxygen uptake, quality of life (EuroQol 5D), and self-efficacy (Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale). A sample size calculation on the primary outcome showed that 207 individuals, 69 in each group, is needed to detect a clinically relevant difference of 10 points with 80% power and a significance level of 5%. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, 14 weeks, 1 year and 2 years post-randomization. The interventions will be a 14 weeks exercise program.Although exercise therapy has been found to be effective in knee osteoarthritis, the knowledge of the underlying mechanisms for why exercise works is lacking. This study will contribute with knowledge on the efficacy of strength exercise versus cycling on patient-reported outcomes, cartilage quality and cost-effectiveness.Clinicaltrial.gov Identifier: NCT01682980.

Project description:ImportanceStructured education and exercise therapy programs have been proposed to reduce reliance on total knee replacement (TKR) surgery and improve health care sustainability. The long-term cost-effectiveness of these programs is unclear.ObjectivesTo estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of implementing a national structured education and exercise therapy program for individuals with knee osteoarthritis with the option for future TKR compared with usual care (TKR for all).Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used a life table model in combination with a Markov model to compare costs and health outcomes of a national education and exercise therapy program vs usual care in the Australian health care system. Subgroup, deterministic, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were completed. A hypothetical cohort of adults aged 45 to 84 years who would undergo TKR was created.ExposureStructured education and exercise therapy intervention provided by physiotherapists. The comparator was usual care where all people undergo TKR without accessing the program in the first year.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental net monetary benefit (INMB), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold of 28 033 Australian dollars (A$) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, was calculated from a health care perspective. Transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were estimated from national registries and a randomized clinical trial.ResultsThe hypothetical cohort included 61 394 individuals (53.9% female; 93.6% aged ≥55 years). Implementation of an education and exercise therapy program resulted in a lifetime cost savings of A$498 307 942 (US $339 922 227), or A$7970 (US $5537) per individual, and resulted in fewer QALYs (0.43 per individual) compared with usual care. At a population level, education and exercise therapy was not cost-effective at the lifetime horizon (INMB, -A$4090 [-US $2841]). Subgroup analysis revealed that the intervention was cost-effective only for the first 9 years and over a lifetime only in individuals with no or mild pain at baseline (INMB, A$11 [US $8]). Results were robust to uncertainty around model inputs.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation of structured education and exercise therapy compared with usual care, the intervention was not cost-effective over the lifetime for all patients but was for the first 9 years and for those with minimal pain. These findings point to opportunities to invest early cost savings in additional care or prevention, including targeted implementation to specific subgroups.

Project description:To assess cost-effectiveness and cost utility of telerehabilitation (TR) versus standard rehabilitation (SR) after total knee replacement (TKR).Markov decision modelling of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis based on patient-level and secondary data sources employing Italian National Health Service (NHS; Ita-NHS) and Society perspectives.Primary care units (PCUs) in Italy.Patients discharged after TKR.Mixed SR-TR service (10 face-to-face sessions and 10 telesessions) versus SR (20 face-to-face sessions)The incremental cost per additional knee flexion range of motion (ROM) and per QALY gained by SR-TR compared with SR. Second, we considered the probability of being cost-effective and the probability of being more effective and less expensive.TR appears to be the cost-effective in the base case and in all of the considered scenarios, but is no longer more effective and less expensive if transportation costs are excluded. Comparing SR-TR with SR, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) adopting the Ita-NHS perspective for the base case was -€117/ROM gained. The cost-effectiveness probability for SR-TR was 0.98 (ceiling ratio: €50/ROM), while the joint probability of being more effective and less expensive was 0.87. Assuming that TR would increase health-related quality of life (HRQOL) utilities by 2.5%, the ICER adopting Ita-NHS perspective is -€960/QALY (cost-effectiveness probability: 1; ceiling ratio: €30 000/QALY). All the performed sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions, but if transportation costs were excluded, the probability for SR-TR of being more clinically effective and less expensive reduced to 0.56.The analysis suggested SR-TR to be cost-effective, even less expensive and more effective if the PCUs provide ambulance transportations. However, the uncertainty related to TR costs, HRQOL and long-term clinical outcomes raises important topics for future research, which should be addressed to confirm our estimates.ISRCTN45837371.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of strength exercise or aerobic exercise compared with usual care for patients with knee osteoarthritis: secondary results from a multiarm randomised controlled trial in Norway.

Objectives

Design

Participants and setting

Interventions

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration number

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of strength exercise or aerobic exercise compared with usual care for patients with knee osteoarthritis: secondary results from a multiarm randomised controlled trial in Norway.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets