Cost-effectiveness analysis of a cardio-oncology rehabilitation framework compared to an exercise intervention for cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A cardio-oncology rehabilitation model among cancer survivors showed superior results comparing to a community-based exercise intervention. However, questions remain about its cost-effectiveness. AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) program when compared to usual care encompassing a community-based exercise training (CBET), among cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: The CORE study was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial; 80 adult cancer survivors with previous exposure to cardiotoxic cancer treatment and/or with previous cardiovascular disease were assigned (11 ratio) to an 8-week CBCR or CBET, twice/week. Cost-effectiveness was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Outcomes included healthcare resource use and costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was computed from a societal perspective. RESULTS: 75 patients completed the study (CBCR N=38; CBET N=37). The CBCR had significantly higher cost per patient (477.76 ± 39.08€) compared to CBET group (339.32 ± 53.88€), with a significant between-group difference 138.44€ (95% CI, 116.82 to 160.05€, p<0.01). A between-group difference by 0.100 points in QALYs was observed, favouring the CBCR (95% CI, -0.163 to -0.037, p=0.002). When CBCR was compared with CBET, the ICER was €1,383.24 per QALY gained; at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €5,000 per QALY, the probability of CBCR being cost-effective was 99.9% (95% CI, 99.4 to 100.0). CONCLUSION: The CORE trial shows that a CBCR is a cost-effective intervention in the management of cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk, reinforcing the potential benefits of this multidisciplinary approach in supportive care of this specific subset of cancer patients.

The CORE study was a randomized clinical trial including 80 cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk; an 8-week cardio-oncology rehabilitation framework promoted superior results on cardiorespiratory fitness (peak oxygen consumption) and quality of life, but questions remained about the cost-effectiveness of this option. This study findings suggest that a center-based cardiac rehabilitation proved to be cost-effective, when compared to usual care encompassing community-based exercise training the value-added of a comprehensive approach delivered in an oncological setting reinforce the potential benefits of including this intervention in supportive care of a specific subset of cancer patients, within existing contemporary cardiac rehabilitation resources and infrastructures.