scholarly journals OP0198-HPR A STRUCTURED MODEL FOR OA CARE IN PRIMARY HEALTHCARE IS A COST-EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO USUAL CARE FOR PEOPLE WITH HIP AND KNEE OA

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 119-120
Author(s):  
N. Østerås ◽  
E. Aas ◽  
T. Moseng ◽  
L. Van Bodegom-Vos ◽  
K. Dziedzic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Structured Model ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Cost Effective Alternative ◽  
The Cost

Background:To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), a structured model for integrated OA care was developed based on international treatment recommendations. A previous analysis of a cluster RCT (cRCT) showed that compared to usual care, the intervention group reported higher quality of care and greater satisfaction with care. Also, more patients were treated according to international guidelines and fulfilled recommendations for physical activity at the 6-month follow-up.Objectives:To assess the cost-utility of a structured model for hip or knee OA care.Methods:A cRCT with stepped-wedge cohort design was conducted in 6 Norwegian municipalities (clusters) in 2015-17. The OA care model was implemented in one cluster at the time by switching from “usual care” to the structured model. The implementation of the model was facilitated by interactive workshops for general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs) with an update on OA treatment recommendations. The GPs explained the OA diagnosis and treatment alternatives, provided pharmacological treatment when appropriate, and suggested referral to physiotherapy. The PT-led patient OA education programme was group-based and lasted 3 hours followed by an 8–12-week individually tailored resistance exercise programme with twice weekly 1-hour supervised group sessions (5–10 patients per PT). An optional 10-hours Healthy Eating Program was available. Participants were ≥45 years with symptomatic hip or knee OA.Costs were measured from the healthcare perspective and collected from several sources. Patients self-reported visits in primary healthcare at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Secondary healthcare visits and joint surgery data were extracted from the Norwegian Patient Register. The health outcome, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was estimated based on the EQ-5D-5L scores at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The result of the cost-utility analysis was reported using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the incremental costs relative to incremental QALYs (QALYs gained). Based on Norwegian guidelines, the threshold is €27500. Sensitivity analyses were performed using bootstrapping to assess the robustness of reported results and presented in a cost-effectiveness plane (Figure 1).Results:The 393 patients’ mean age was 63 years (SD 9.6) and 74% were women. 109 patients were recruited during control periods (control group), and 284 patients were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). Only the intervention group had a significant increase in EQ-5D-5L utility scores from baseline to 12 months follow-up (mean change 0.03; 95% CI 0.01, 0.05) with QALYs gained: 0.02 (95% CI -0.08, 0.12). The structured OA model cost approx. €301 p.p. with an additional €50 for the Healthy Eating Program. Total 12 months healthcare cost p.p. was €1281 in the intervention and €3147 in the control group, resulting in an incremental cost of -€1866 (95% CI -3147, -584) p.p. Costs related to surgical procedures had the largest impact on total healthcare costs in both groups. During the 12-months follow-up period, 5% (n=14) in the intervention compared to 12% (n=13) in the control group underwent joint surgery; resulting in a mean surgical procedure cost of €553 p.p. in the intervention as compared to €1624 p.p. in the control group. The ICER was -€93300, indicating that the OA care model resulted in QALYs gained and cost-savings. At a threshold of €27500, it is 99% likely that the OA care model is a cost-effective alternative.Conclusion:The results of the cost-utility analysis show that implementing a structured model for OA care in primary healthcare based on international guidelines is highly likely a cost-effective alternative compared to usual care for people with hip and knee OA. More studies are needed to confirm this finding, but this study results indicate that implementing structured OA care models in primary healthcare may be beneficial for the individual as well as for the society.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention for the Prevention of Falls in Older People: The REducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention Trial Findings

Gerontology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (5) ◽  
pp. 503-512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belen Corbacho ◽  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
Caroline Fairhurst ◽  
Catherine E. Hewitt ◽  
Kate Hicks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Older People ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Falls Prevention ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Background: Falls are a major cause of morbidity among older people. Multifaceted interventions may be effective in preventing falls and related fractures. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness alongside the REducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention (REFORM) trial. Methods: REFORM was a pragmatic multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial in England and Ireland; 1,010 participants (> 65 years) were randomised to receive either a podiatry intervention (n = 493), including foot and ankle strengthening exercises, foot orthoses, new footwear if required, and a falls prevention leaflet, or usual podiatry treatment plus a falls prevention leaflet (n = 517). Primary outcome: incidence of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. Secondary outcomes: proportion of fallers and quality of life (EQ-5D-3L) which was converted into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each participant. Differences in mean costs and QALYs at 12 months were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to usual care. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted in accordance with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence reference case standards, using a regression-based approach with costs expressed in GBP (2015 price). The base case analysis used an intention-to-treat approach on the imputed data set using multiple imputation. Results: There was a small, non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.73–1.05, p = 0.16). Participants allocated to the intervention group accumulated on average marginally higher QALYs than the usual care participants (mean difference 0.0129, 95% CI –0.0050 to 0.0314). The intervention costs were on average GBP 252 more per participant compared to the usual care participants (95% CI GBP –69 to GBP 589). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between GBP 19,494 and GBP 20,593 per QALY gained, below the conventional National Health Service cost-effectiveness thresholds of GBP 20,000 to GBP 30,000 per additional QALY. The probability that the podiatry intervention is cost-effective at a threshold of GBP 30,000 per QALY gained was 0.65. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The benefits of the intervention justified the moderate cost. The intervention could be a cost-effective option for falls prevention when compared with usual care in the UK.

scholarly journals Peer mentorship to improve self-management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a randomised feasibility trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e045389
Author(s):  
Anna M Anderson ◽  
Elizabeth C Lavender ◽  
Esther Dusabe-Richards ◽  
Teumzghi F Mebrahtu ◽  
Linda McGowan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Peer Mentor ◽  
Peer Mentorship ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Patient Reported

ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a peer mentorship intervention to improve self-management of osteoarthritis (OA).DesignSix-month parallel group non-blinded randomised feasibility trial.SettingOne secondary care and one primary care UK National Health Service Trust.ParticipantsFifty adults aged ≥55 years old with hip and/or knee OA.InterventionsParticipants were allocated 1:1 to the intervention or control group using an online randomisation service. Intervention group participants received usual care (information resources) and up to eight community-based self-management support sessions delivered by a peer mentor (trained volunteer with hip and/or knee OA). Control group participants received usual care only.Outcome measuresKey feasibility outcomes were participant and peer mentor recruitment and attrition, intervention completion and the sample size required for a definitive RCT. Based on these feasibility outcomes, four success criteria for proceeding to a definitive RCT were prespecified. Patient-reported outcomes were collected via questionnaires at baseline, 8 weeks and 6 months.ResultsNinety-six individuals were screened, 65 were eligible and 50 were randomised (25 per group). Of the 24 participants who commenced the intervention, 20 completed it. Four participants did not complete the 6-month questionnaire. Twenty-one individuals were eligible for the peer mentor role, 15 were trained and 5 withdrew prior to being matched with a participant. No intervention-related harms occurred. Allowing for 20% attrition, the sample size required for a definitive RCT was calculated as 170 participants. The intervention group showed improvements in self-management compared with the control group.ConclusionsThe feasibility outcomes achieved the prespecified criteria for proceeding to an RCT. The exploratory analyses suggest peer mentorship may improve OA self-management. An RCT of the OA peer mentorship intervention is therefore warranted with minor modifications to the intervention and trial procedures.Trial registration numberISRCTN:50675542.

scholarly journals 1-year cost-utility analysis of prostate artery embolization (PAE) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e000071
Author(s):  
Nikisha Patel ◽  
Nathan Yung ◽  
Ganesh Vigneswaran ◽  
Laure de Preux ◽  
Drew Maclean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Prostate Artery Embolization ◽  
Cost Effective Alternative ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveTo determine whether prostate artery embolization (PAE) is a cost-effective alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the management of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) after 1-year follow-up.Design, setting and main outcome measuresA retrospective cost-utility analysis over a 12-month time period was conducted to compare the two interventions from a National Health Service perspective. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from data collected during the observational UK Register of Prostate Embolisation (UK-ROPE) Study. Costs for both PAE and TURP were derived from University Hospital Southampton, a tertiary referral centre for BPH and the largest contributor to the UK-ROPE. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was derived from cost and QALY values associated with both interventions to assess the cost-effectiveness of PAE versus TURP. Further sensitivity analyses involved a decision tree model to account for the impact of patient-reported complications on the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.ResultsThe mean patient age for TURP (n=31) and PAE (n=133) was 69 and 65.6 years, respectively. In comparison to TURP, PAE was cheaper due to shorter patient stays and the lack of necessity for an operating theatre. Analysis revealed an ICER of £64 798.10 saved per QALY lost when comparing PAE to TURP after 1-year follow-up.ConclusionOur findings suggest that PAE is initially a cost-effective alternative to TURP for the management of BPH after 1-year follow-up. Due to a higher reintervention rate in the PAE group, this benefit may be lost in subsequent years.Trial registration numberNCT02434575.

Preventive Antibiotics in Stroke Study (PASS)

Neurology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 90 (18) ◽  
pp. e1553-e1560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willeke F. Westendorp ◽  
Elles Zock ◽  
Jan-Dirk Vermeij ◽  
Henk Kerkhoff ◽  
Paul J. Nederkoorn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Acute Stroke ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Institutional Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Open Label ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of preventive ceftriaxone vs standard stroke unit care without preventive antimicrobial therapy in acute stroke patients.MethodsIn this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial with masked endpoint assessment, 2,550 patients with acute stroke were included between 2010 and 2014. Economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective with a time horizon of 3 months. Volumes and costs of direct, indirect, medical, and nonmedical care were assessed. Primary outcome was cost per unit of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses were performed.ResultsA total of 2,538 patients were available for the intention-to-treat analysis. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, 2,538 patients were available for in-hospital resource use and 1,453 for other resource use. Use of institutional care resources, out-of-pocket expenses, and productivity losses was comparable between treatment groups. The mean score on mRS was 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.31–2.44) vs 2.44 (95% CI 2.37–2.51) in the ceftriaxone vs control group, the decrease by 0.06 (95% CI −0.04 to 0.16) in favor of ceftriaxone treatment being nonsignificant. However, the number of QALYs was 0.163 (95% CI 0.159–0.166) vs 0.155 (95% CI 0.152–0.158) in the ceftriaxone vs control group, with the difference of 0.008 (95% CI 0.003–0.012) in favor of ceftriaxone (p = 0.006) at 3 months. The probability of ceftriaxone being cost-effective ranged between 0.67 and 0.89. Probability of 0.75 was attained at a willing-to-pay level of €2,290 per unit decrease in the mRS score and of €12,200 per QALY.ConclusionsPreventive ceftriaxone has a probability of 0.7 of being less costly than standard treatment per unit decrease in mRS and per QALY gained.

Cost-Effectiveness of Perioperative Mupirocin Nasal Ointment in Cardiothoracic Surgery

1996 ◽  
Vol 17 (12) ◽  
pp. 786-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjolein F.Q. VandenBergh ◽  
Jan A.J.W. Kluytmans ◽  
Ben A. van Hout ◽  
Alexander P.W.M. Maat ◽  
Rob J. Seerden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Substantial Effect ◽  
Cardiothoracic Surgery ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Tertiary Referral Center ◽  
The Cost

AbstractObjective:To assess the cost-effectiveness of perioperative intranasal application of mupirocin calcium ointment in cardiothoracic surgery.Design:Cost-effectiveness analysis based on results of an intervention study with historical controls.Setting:University Hospital Rotterdam, a tertiary referral center for cardiac and pulmonary surgery.Patients:Consecutive patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery between August 1, 1989, and February 1, 1991 (control group, n=928), and between March 1, 1991, and August 1, 1992 (intervention group, n=868).Intervention:Perioperative nasal application of mupirocin calcium ointment started on the day before surgery, continued for 5 days, twice daily.Results:Postoperative costs were increased significantly in patients with a surgical-site infection (SSI), compared with uninfected patients (P<.001). Mean SSI-attributable costs were estimated at $16,878 (95% confidence interval, $15,575-$18,181). The incidence of SSIs was 7.3% in the control group and 2.8% in the intervention group, mupirocin effectiveness being 62%. The costs of mupirocin were $11 per patient. Thus, the savings per SSI prevented were $16,633. To validate this comparative estimate of SSI-attributable costs, a noncomparative analysis of the postoperative length of stay (POLS) was performed, according to the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol. Approximately 50% of the comparative SSI-attributable POLS were judged SSI-attributable in the noncomparative analysis. Sensitivity analyses, testing for the robustness of our conclusions, indicated that the presented model is rather insensitive to variations in the incidence of SSIs and for the effectiveness and costs of mupirocin. SSI-attributable costs were shown to be the only variable with substantial effect on the cost-effectiveness ratio. Perioperative mupirocin would result in net costs instead of savings only if SSI-attributable costs were less than $245.Conclusions:SSIs in patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery are associated with a substantial increase in postoperative costs. Provided that perioperative mupirocin reduces the SSI rate, this measure will be highly cost-effective in most centers providing cardiothoracic surgical services.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention in high-risk individuals for diabetes in a low- and middle-income setting: Trial-based analysis of the Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program

BMC Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thirunavukkarasu Sathish ◽  
Brian Oldenburg ◽  
Kavumpurathu R. Thankappan ◽  
Pilvikki Absetz ◽  
Jonathan E. Shaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health System ◽  
Lifestyle Intervention ◽  
Diabetes Prevention ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Diabetes Prevention Program ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Control Group ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Data on the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle-based diabetes prevention programs are mostly from high-income countries, which cannot be extrapolated to low- and middle-income countries. We performed a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a lifestyle intervention targeted at preventing diabetes in India. Methods The Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of 1007 individuals conducted in 60 polling areas (electoral divisions) in Kerala state. Participants (30–60 years) were those with a high diabetes risk score and without diabetes on an oral glucose tolerance test. The intervention group received a 12-month peer-support lifestyle intervention involving 15 group sessions delivered in community settings by trained lay peer leaders. There were also linked community activities to sustain behavior change. The control group received a booklet on lifestyle change. Costs were estimated from the health system and societal perspectives, with 2018 as the reference year. Effectiveness was measured in terms of the number of diabetes cases prevented and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Three times India’s gross domestic product per capita (US$6108) was used as the cost-effectiveness threshold. The analyses were conducted with a 2-year time horizon. Costs and effects were discounted at 3% per annum. One-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Baseline characteristics were similar in the two study groups. Over 2 years, the intervention resulted in an incremental health system cost of US$2.0 (intervention group: US$303.6; control group: US$301.6), incremental societal cost of US$6.2 (intervention group: US$367.8; control group: US$361.5), absolute risk reduction of 2.1%, and incremental QALYs of 0.04 per person. From a health system perspective, the cost per diabetes case prevented was US$95.2, and the cost per QALY gained was US$50.0. From a societal perspective, the corresponding figures were US$295.1 and US$155.0. For the number of diabetes cases prevented, the probability for the intervention to be cost-effective was 84.0% and 83.1% from the health system and societal perspectives, respectively. The corresponding figures for QALY gained were 99.1% and 97.8%. The results were robust to discounting and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions A community-based peer-support lifestyle intervention was cost-effective in individuals at high risk of developing diabetes in India over 2 years. Trial registration The trial was registered with Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12611000262909). Registered 10 March 2011.

scholarly journals OP0321-HPR HIGHER QUALITY OF CARE AND LESS SURGERY AFTER IMPLEMENTING OSTEOARTHRITIS GUIDELINES IN PRIMARY CARE– LONG-TERM RESULTS FROM A CLUSTER RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 198.2-198
Author(s):  
N. Osteras ◽  
T. Moseng ◽  
L. Van Bodegom-Vos ◽  
K. Dziedzic ◽  
Ø. Andreassen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Satisfaction With Care ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Structured Model ◽  
Knee Oa

Background:To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), a structured model for integrated OA care was developed and implemented among general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs) in primary care. The model was developed based on international treatment recommendations. After 6 months, patient-reported quality of care and satisfaction with care were greater, more patients were referred to physiotherapy and fewer to orthopaedic surgeon, and more patients fulfilled physical activity criteria among OA patients receiving the new model of care compared to the usual care control group1.Objectives:To assess the long-term effects 12 months after implementing the model in primary care.Methods:A cluster-randomised controlled trial with a stepped-wedge design was conducted in six Norwegian municipalities (clusters). The intervention included implementation of the model, facilitated by interactive workshops for GPs and PTs. The main components of the model were a PT led, 3 hour patient education programme followed by 8-12 weeks of individually tailored, supervised exercise. Patient participants were ≥45 years with symptomatic hip or knee OA. Primary outcome was patient-reported quality of care (OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire; 0–100, 100 = optimal quality). Secondary outcomes included satisfaction with care, referrals to physiotherapy, orthopaedic surgeon and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), joint replacement surgery, fulfilment of physical activity recommendations, and proportion with overweight (body mass index ≥25 kg/m2). Data was analysed using multilevel mixed models adjusted for age, sex and secular time.Results:In all, 40 of 80 GPs and 37 of 64 PTs attended the workshops. A total of 393 patients with hip and knee OA were included, with 284 in the intervention and 109 in the usual care control group. In the intervention group, 92% attended the OA education programme and 64% completed ≥8 weeks of exercise. At 12 months the intervention group reported significantly higher quality of care (score 58 vs. 41, mean difference: 17.6; 95% CI 11.1, 24.0) compared to the control group. The intervention group reported significantly higher satisfaction with care (Odds ratio (OR) 7.8; 95% CI 3.55, 17.27) and a significantly larger proportion (OR: 4.0; 95% CI 1.27, 12.63) met the recommendations for physical activity compared to the control group. A smaller proportion was referred to orthopaedic surgeon (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.29, 1.00) and a smaller proportion received joint replacement surgery in the intervention (4%) compared to the control group (11%) (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.14, 0.74). The proportion of patients referred to physiotherapy or MRI and the proportion with overweight were similar between the groups.Conclusion:Implementation of a structured model for OA care led to improved quality of care, higher satisfaction with care and higher physical activity levels after 12 months. These results are comparable to the 6 months results, which indicate a long-term persistence in the beneficial effects of the intervention. The lower surgical rate in the intervention compared to the control group suggests that higher uptake of OA recommendations in primary care may reduce or postpone the need for surgery in people with hip or knee OA.References:[1]Østerås N, Moseng T, Bodegom-Vos LV, et al. Implementing a structured model for osteoarthritis care in primary healthcare: A stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial.PLOS Medicine.2019;16(10):e1002949.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Cost effectiveness of a pragmatic exercise intervention (EXIMS) for people with multiple sclerosis: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 1123-1130 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Tosh ◽  
S Dixon ◽  
A Carter ◽  
A Daley ◽  
J Petty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Exercise Intervention ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Qaly Threshold

Background: Exercise is a safe, non-pharmacological adjunctive treatment for people with multiple sclerosis but cost-effective approaches to implementing exercise within health care settings are needed. Objective: The objective of this paper is to assess the cost effectiveness of a pragmatic exercise intervention in conjunction with usual care compared to usual care only in people with mild to moderate multiple sclerosis. Methods: A cost-utility analysis of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial over nine months of follow-up was conducted. A total of 120 people with multiple sclerosis were randomised (1:1) to the intervention or usual care. Exercising participants received 18 supervised and 18 home exercise sessions over 12 weeks. The primary outcome for the cost utility analysis was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, calculated using utilities measured by the EQ-5D questionnaire. Results: The incremental cost per QALY of the intervention was £10,137 per QALY gained compared to usual care. The probability of being cost effective at a £20,000 per QALY threshold was 0.75, rising to 0.78 at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. Conclusion: The pragmatic exercise intervention is highly likely to be cost effective at current established thresholds, and there is scope for it to be tailored to particular sub-groups of patients or services to reduce its cost impact.

scholarly journals Low adherence to exercise may have influenced the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders in an integrated OA care model: Secondary analyses from a cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuva Moseng ◽  
Hanne Dagfinrud ◽  
Leti van Bodegom-Vos ◽  
Krysia Dziedzic ◽  
Kåre Birger Hagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Treatment Recommendations ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Stepped Wedge ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Structured Model ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background: To address the well-documented gap between hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment recommendations and current clinical practice, a structured model for integrated OA care was developed and evaluated in a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. The current study used secondary outcomes to evaluate clinically important response to treatment through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials clinical responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria) after 3 and 6 months between patients receiving the structured OA care model vs. usual care. Secondly, the study aimed to investigate if the proportion of responders in the intervention group was influenced by adherence to the exercise program inherent in the model. Methods: The study was conducted in primary healthcare in six Norwegian municipalities. General practitioners and physiotherapists received training in OA treatment recommendations and use of the structured model. The intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education program and performed individually tailored exercises for 8-12 weeks. The control group received usual care. Patient-reported pain, function and global assessment of disease activity during the last week were evaluated using 11-point numeric rating scales (NRS 0-10). These scores were used to calculate the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders. Two-level mixed logistic regression models were fitted to investigate differences in responders between the intervention and control group. Results: 284 intervention and 109 control group participants with hip and knee OA recruited from primary care in six Norwegian municipalities. In total 47% of the intervention and 35% of the control group participants were responders at 3 or 6 months combined; showing an uncertain between-group difference (OR adjusted 1.38 (95% CI 0.41, 4.67). In the intervention group, 184 participants completed the exercise programme (exercised ≥2 times/week for ≥8 weeks) and 55% of these were classified as responders. In contrast, 28% of the 86 non-completers were classified as responders. Conclusions: The difference in proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders at 3 and 6 months between the intervention and control group was uncertain. In the intervention group, a larger proportion of responders were seen among the exercise completers compared to the non-completers.

scholarly journals Low adherence to exercise may have influenced the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders in an integrated OA care model: Secondary analyses from a cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuva Moseng ◽  
Hanne Dagfinrud ◽  
Leti van Bodegom-Vos ◽  
Krysia Dziedzic ◽  
Kåre Birger Hagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Treatment Recommendations ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Stepped Wedge ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Structured Model ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background: To address the well-documented gap between hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment recommendations and current clinical practice, a structured model for integrated OA care was developed and evaluated in a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. The current study used secondary outcomes to evaluate clinically important response to treatment through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials clinical responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria) after 3 and 6 months between patients receiving the structured OA care model vs. usual care. Secondly, the study aimed to investigate if the proportion of responders in the intervention group was influenced by adherence to the exercise program inherent in the model. Methods: The study was conducted in primary healthcare in six Norwegian municipalities. General practitioners and physiotherapists received training in OA treatment recommendations and use of the structured model. The intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education program and performed individually tailored exercises for 8-12 weeks. The control group received usual care. Patient-reported pain, function and global assessment of disease activity during the last week were evaluated using 11-point numeric rating scales (NRS 0-10). These scores were used to calculate the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders. Two-level mixed logistic regression models were fitted to investigate differences in responders between the intervention and control group. Results: 284 intervention and 109 control group participants with hip and knee OA recruited from primary care in six Norwegian municipalities. In total 47% of the intervention and 35% of the control group participants were responders at 3 or 6 months combined; showing an uncertain between-group difference (OR adjusted 1.38 (95% CI 0.41, 4.67). In the intervention group, 184 participants completed the exercise programme (exercised ≥2 times/week for ≥8 weeks) and 55% of these were classified as responders. In contrast, 28% of the 86 non-completers were classified as responders. Conclusions: The difference in proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders at 3 and 6 months between the intervention and control group was uncertain. In the intervention group, a larger proportion of responders were seen among the exercise completers compared to the non-completers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document