Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cost-Effectiveness of Cardiac Rehabilitation in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis.
Takura, Tomoyuki; Ebata-Kogure, Nozomi; Goto, Yoichi; Kohzuki, Masahiro; Nagayama, Masatoshi; Oikawa, Keiko; Koyama, Teruyuki; Itoh, Haruki.
Affiliation
  • Takura T; Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan.
  • Ebata-Kogure N; Aichi Medical University, Aichi 480-1195, Japan.
  • Goto Y; National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Osaka 565-8565, Japan.
  • Kohzuki M; Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Miyagi 980-8574, Japan.
  • Nagayama M; Sakakibara Heart Institute, Tokyo 183-0003, Japan.
  • Oikawa K; Tokai University Hachioji Hospital, Tokyo 192-0032, Japan.
  • Koyama T; Tokyo Metropolitan Geriatric Hospital and Institute of Gerontology, Tokyo 173-0015, Japan.
  • Itoh H; Sakakibara Heart Institute, Tokyo 183-0003, Japan.
Cardiol Res Pract ; 2019: 1840894, 2019.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31275640
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Medical costs associated with cardiovascular disease are increasing considerably worldwide; therefore, an efficacious, cost-effective therapy which allows the effective use of medical resources is vital. There have been few economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), especially meta-analyses of medical cost versus patient outcome.

METHODS:

The target population in this meta-analysis included convalescent and comprehensive CR patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), the status most commonly observed postmyocardial infarction (MI). Here, we evaluated medical costs, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), cost-effectiveness, mortality, and life year (LY). Regarding cost-effectiveness analysis, we analyzed medical costs per QALY, medical costs per LY, and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). We then examined the differences in effects for the 2 treatment arms (CR vs. usual care (UC)) using the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD).

RESULTS:

We reviewed 59 studies and identified 5 studies that matched our selection criteria. In total, 122,485 patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis results revealed that the CR arm significantly improved QALY (SMD -1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.69, -0.87) compared with UC. Although medical costs tended to be higher in the CR arm compared to the UC arm (SMD 0.02; 95% CI -0.08, 0.13), cost/QALY was significantly improved in the CR arm compared with the UC arm (SMD -0.31; 95% CI -0.53, -0.09). The ICURs for the studies (4 RCTs and 1 model analysis) were as follows -48,327.6 USD/QALY; -5,193.8 USD/QALY (dominant, CR is cheaper and more effective than UC); and 4,048.0 USD/QALY, 17,209.4 USD/QALY, and 26,888.7 USD/QALY (<50,000 USD/QALY, CR is costlier but more effective than UC), respectively. Therefore, there were 2 dominant and 3 effective results.

CONCLUSIONS:

While there are some limitations, primarily regarding data sources, our results suggest that CR is potentially cost-effective.

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Aspects: Patient_preference Language: En Journal: Cardiol Res Pract Year: 2019 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Japan

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Aspects: Patient_preference Language: En Journal: Cardiol Res Pract Year: 2019 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Japan