Cost-effectiveness of Cardiac Telerehabilitation With Relapse Prevention for the Treatment of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease in the Netherlands.

Importance: Cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) has been found to be a safe and beneficial alternative to traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and might be associated with higher participation rates by reducing barriers to CR use. However, implementation of CTR interventions remains low, which may be owing to a lack of cost-effectiveness analyses of data from large-scale randomized clinical trials. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of CTR with relapse prevention compared with center-based CR among patients with coronary artery disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation performed a cost-utility analysis of data from the SmartCare-CAD (Effects of Cardiac Telerehabilitation in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Using a Personalized Patient-Centred ICT Platform) randomized clinical trial. The cost-effectiveness and utility of 3 months of cardiac telerehabilitation followed by 9 months of relapse prevention were compared with the cost-effectiveness of traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation. The analysis included 300 patients with stable coronary artery disease who received care at a CR center serving 2 general hospitals in the Netherlands between May 23, 2016, and July 26, 2018. All patients were entering phase 2 of outpatient CR and were followed up for 1 year (until August 14, 2019). Data were analyzed from September 21, 2020, to September 24, 2021. Intervention: After baseline measurements were obtained, participants were randomly assigned on a 1:1 ratio to receive CTR (intervention group) or center-based CR (control group) using computerized block randomization. After 6 supervised center-based training sessions, patients in the intervention group continued training at home using a heart rate monitor and accelerometer. Patients uploaded heart rate and physical activity data and discussed their progress during a weekly video consultation with their physical therapist. After 3 months, weekly coaching was concluded, and on-demand coaching was initiated for relapse prevention; patients were instructed to continue using their wearable sensors and were contacted in cases of nonadherence to the intervention or reduced exercise or physical activity volumes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality-adjusted life-years were assessed using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level survey (EQ-5D-5L) and the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), and cardiac-associated health care costs and non-health care costs were measured by health care consumption, productivity, and informal care questionnaires (the Medical Consumption Questionnaire, the Productivity Cost Questionnaire, and the Valuation of Informal Care Questionnaire) designed by the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment. Costs were converted to 2020 price levels (in euros) using the Dutch consumer price index (to convert to US dollars, euro values were multiplied by 1.142, which was the mean exchange rate in 2020). Results: Among 300 patients (266 men [88.7%]), the mean (SD) age was 60.7 (9.5) years. The quality of life among patients receiving CTR vs center-based CR was comparable during the study according to the results of both utility measures (mean difference on EQ-5D-5L: -0.004; P = .82; mean difference on EQ-VAS: -0.001; P = .92). Intervention costs were significantly higher for CTR (mean [SE], €224 [€4] [$256 ($4)]) compared with center-based CR (mean [SE], €156 [€5] [$178 ($6)]; P < .001); however, no difference in overall cardiac health care costs was observed between CTR (mean [SE], €4787 [€503] [$5467 ($574)] and center-based CR (mean [SE], €5507 [€659] [$6289 ($753)]; P = .36). From a societal perspective, CTR was associated with lower costs compared with center-based CR (mean [SE], €20 495 [€ 2751] [$23 405 ($3142)] vs €24 381 [€3613] [$27 843 ($4126)], respectively), although this difference was not statistically significant (-€3887 [-$4439]; P = .34). Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, a CTR intervention with relapse prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared with center-based CR, suggesting that CTR maybe used as an alternative intervention for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. These results add to the evidence base in favor of CTR and may increase the implementation of CTR interventions in clinical practice.

Towards a personalised approach in exercise-based cardiovascular rehabilitation: How can translational research help? A 'call to action' from the Section on Secondary Prevention and Cardiac Rehabilitation of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

The benefit of regular physical activity and exercise training for the prevention of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases is undisputed. Many molecular mechanisms mediating exercise effects have been deciphered. Personalised exercise prescription can help patients in achieving their individual greatest benefit from an exercise-based cardiovascular rehabilitation programme. Yet, we still struggle to provide truly personalised exercise prescriptions to our patients. In this position paper, we address novel basic and translational research concepts that can help us understand the principles underlying the inter-individual differences in the response to exercise, and identify early on who would most likely benefit from which exercise intervention. This includes hereditary, non-hereditary and sex-specific concepts. Recent insights have helped us to take on a more holistic view, integrating exercise-mediated molecular mechanisms with those influenced by metabolism and immunity. Unfortunately, while the outline is recognisable, many details are still lacking to turn the understanding of a concept into a roadmap ready to be used in clinical routine. This position paper therefore also investigates perspectives on how the advent of 'big data' and the use of animal models could help unravel inter-individual responses to exercise parameters and thus influence hypothesis-building for translational research in exercise-based cardiovascular rehabilitation.

Cardiac rehabilitation availability and delivery in Europe: How does it differ by region and compare with other high-income countries?: Endorsed by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to establish cardiac rehabilitation availability and density, as well as the nature of programmes, and to compare these by European region (geoscheme) and with other high-income countries. METHODS: A survey was administered to cardiac rehabilitation programmes globally. Cardiac associations were engaged to facilitate programme identification. Density was computed using global burden of disease study ischaemic heart disease incidence estimates. Four high-income countries were selected for comparison (N = 790 programmes) to European data, and multilevel analyses were performed. RESULTS: Cardiac rehabilitation was available in 40/44 (90.9%) European countries. Data were collected in 37 (94.8% country response rate). A total of 455/1538 (29.6% response rate) programme respondents initiated the survey. Programme volumes (median 300) were greatest in western European countries, but overall were higher than in other high-income countries (P < 0.001). Across all Europe, there was on average only 1 CR spot per 7 IHD patients, with an unmet regional need of 3,449,460 spots annually. Most programmes were funded by social security (n = 25, 59.5%; with significant regional variation, P < 0.001), but in 72 (16.0%) patients paid some or all of the programme costs (or ∼18.5% of the ∼€150.0/programme) out of pocket. Guideline-indicated conditions were accepted in 70% or more of programmes (lower for stable coronary disease), with no regional variation. Programmes had a multidisciplinary team of 6.5 ± 3.0 staff (number and type varied regionally; and European programmes had more staff than other high-income countries), offering 8.5 ± 1.5/10 core components (consistent with other high-income countries) over 24.8 ± 26.0 hours (regional differences, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: European cardiac rehabilitation capacity must be augmented. Where available, services were consistent with guidelines, but varied regionally.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared to conventional, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation: Results of the FIT@Home study.

Aim Although cardiac rehabilitation improves physical fitness after a cardiac event, many eligible patients do not participate in cardiac rehabilitation and the beneficial effects of cardiac rehabilitation are often not maintained over time. Home-based training with telemonitoring guidance could improve participation rates and enhance long-term effectiveness. Methods and results We randomised 90 low-to-moderate cardiac risk patients entering cardiac rehabilitation to three months of either home-based training with telemonitoring guidance or centre-based training. Although training adherence was similar between groups, satisfaction was higher in the home-based group ( p = 0.02). Physical fitness improved at discharge ( p < 0.01) and at one-year follow-up ( p < 0.01) in both groups, without differences between groups (home-based p = 0.31 and centre-based p = 0.87). Physical activity levels did not change during the one-year study period (centre-based p = 0.38, home-based p = 0.80). Healthcare costs were statistically non-significantly lower in the home-based group (€437 per patient, 95% confidence interval -562 to 1436, p = 0.39). From a societal perspective, a statistically non-significant difference of €3160 per patient in favour of the home-based group was found (95% confidence interval -460 to 6780, p = 0.09) and the probability that it was more cost-effective varied between 97% and 75% (willingness-to-pay of €0 and €100,000 per quality-adjusted life-years, respectively). Conclusion We found no differences between home-based training with telemonitoring guidance and centre-based training on physical fitness, physical activity level or health-related quality of life. However, home-based training was associated with a higher patient satisfaction and appears to be more cost-effective than centre-based training. We conclude that home-based training with telemonitoring guidance can be used as an alternative to centre-based training for low-to-moderate cardiac risk patients entering cardiac rehabilitation.