Economic evaluation of a randomised trial of early return to normal activities versus cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people living with CHD may need support to manage their symptoms and prognosis. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) aims to improve the health and outcomes of people with CHD. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of exercise-based CR (exercise training alone or in combination with psychosocial or educational interventions) compared with 'no exercise' control, on mortality, morbidity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with CHD.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review, by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases in September 2020. We also searched two clinical trials registers in June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise-based interventions with at least six months' follow-up, compared with 'no exercise' control. The study population comprised adult men and women who have had a myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or have angina pectoris, or coronary artery disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We screened all identified references, extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane methods. We stratified meta-analysis by duration of follow-up: short-term (6 to 12 months); medium-term (> 12 to 36 months); and long-term ( > 3 years), and used meta-regression to explore potential treatment effect modifiers. We used GRADE for primary outcomes at 6 to 12 months (the most common follow-up time point).  MAIN RESULTS: This review included 85 trials which randomised 23,430 people with CHD. This latest update identified 22 new trials (7795 participants). The population included predominantly post-MI and post-revascularisation patients, with a mean age ranging from 47 to 77 years. In the last decade, the median percentage of women with CHD has increased from 11% to 17%, but females still account for a similarly small percentage of participants recruited overall ( < 15%). Twenty-one of the included trials were performed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Overall trial reporting was poor, although there was evidence of an improvement in quality over the last decade. The median longest follow-up time was 12 months (range 6 months to 19 years). At short-term follow-up (6 to 12 months), exercise-based CR likely results in a slight reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.04; 25 trials; moderate certainty evidence), a large reduction in MI (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 22 trials; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 75, 95% CI 47 to 298; high certainty evidence), and a large reduction in all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; 14 trials;  NNTB 12, 95% CI 9 to 21; moderate certainty evidence). Exercise-based CR likely results in little to no difference in risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14; 15 trials; moderate certainty evidence), CABG (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.27; 20 trials; high certainty evidence), and PCI (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19; 13 trials; moderate certainty evidence) up to 12 months' follow-up. We are uncertain about the effects of exercise-based CR on cardiovascular hospitalisation, with a wide confidence interval including considerable benefit as well as harm (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59; low certainty evidence). There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity across trials for cardiovascular hospitalisations (I2 = 53%), and of small study bias for all-cause hospitalisation, but not for all other outcomes. At medium-term follow-up, although there may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 15 trials), MI (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.27; 12 trials), PCI (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.35; 6 trials), CABG (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; 9 trials), and all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 9 trials), a large reduction in cardiovascular mortality was found (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93; 5 trials). Evidence is uncertain for difference in risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12; 3 trials). At long-term follow-up, although there may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10), exercise-based CR may result in a large reduction in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.78; 8 trials) and MI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 10 trials). Evidence is uncertain for CABG (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.27; 4 trials), and PCI (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.20; 3 trials). Meta-regression showed benefits in outcomes were independent of CHD case mix, type of CR, exercise dose, follow-up length, publication year, CR setting, study location, sample size or risk of bias. There was evidence that exercise-based CR may slightly increase HRQoL across several subscales (SF-36 mental component, physical functioning, physical performance, general health, vitality, social functioning and mental health scores) up to 12 months' follow-up; however, these may not be clinically important differences. The eight trial-based economic evaluation studies showed exercise-based CR to be a potentially cost-effective use of resources in terms of gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane Review supports the conclusions of the previous version, that exercise-based CR provides important benefits to people with CHD, including reduced risk of MI, a likely small reduction in all-cause mortality, and a large reduction in all-cause hospitalisation, along with associated healthcare costs, and improved HRQoL up to 12 months' follow-up. Over longer-term follow-up, benefits may include reductions in cardiovascular mortality and MI. In the last decade, trials were more likely to include females, and be undertaken in LMICs, increasing the generalisability of findings. Well-designed, adequately-reported RCTs of CR in people with CHD more representative of usual clinical practice are still needed. Trials should explicitly report clinical outcomes, including mortality and hospital admissions, and include validated HRQoL outcome measures, especially over longer-term follow-up, and assess costs and cost-effectiveness.

Cost-utility analysis of home-based cardiac rehabilitation as compared to usual post-discharge care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Determining cost-utility differences between home-based cardiac rehabilitation (HBCR) on the one hand, and usual post-discharge care (UC) on the other, can improve resource-allocation in healthcare settings.

AREAS COVERED

In June 2019, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane library were searched for randomized controlled HBCR trials. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) of cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between HBCRs and UCs were calculated using random effect models. Heterogeneity was assessed by inconsistency index (I2) and publication bias by funnel plot and Egger's regression test. Thirteen articles, representing 2,992 participants, were deemed representative for final analysis. In the meta-analysis, a significant difference with respect to QALYs favored HBCR, while no significant cost difference was observed between HBCR and UC. However, subgroup-analysis of trials with different follow-up durations revealed somewhat different results, and HBCR was found to be significantly better with regard to both cost and QALYs for patients with heart failure. Cost-utility analysis categorizing interventions as 'dominant', 'effective', 'doubtful', and 'dominated', found HBCRs dominant.

EXPERT OPINION

Although HBCR tended to be superior compared to UC in this review, larger and more robust trials addressing specific patients groups are needed for definitive results.

Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

People with coronary heart disease (CHD) often require prolonged absences from work to convalesce after acute disease events like myocardial infarctions (MI) or revascularisation procedures such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Reduced functional capacity and anxiety due to CHD may further delay or prevent return to work.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of person- and work-directed interventions aimed at enhancing return to work in patients with coronary heart disease compared to usual care or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, NIOSHTIC, NIOSHTIC-2, HSELINE, CISDOC, and LILACS through 11 October 2018. We also searched the US National Library of Medicine registry, clinicaltrials.gov, to identify ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining return to work among people with CHD who were provided either an intervention or usual care. Selected studies included only people treated for MI or who had undergone either a CABG or PCI. At least 80% of the study population should have been working prior to the CHD and not at the time of the trial, or study authors had to have considered a return-to-work subgroup. We included studies in all languages. Two review authors independently selected the studies and consulted a third review author to resolve disagreements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and independently assessed the risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses of rates of return to work and time until return to work. We considered the secondary outcomes, health-related quality of life and adverse events among studies where at least 80% of study participants were eligible to return to work.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 39 RCTs (including one cluster- and four three-armed RCTs). We included the return-to-work results of 34 studies in the meta-analyses.Person-directed, psychological counselling versus usual careWe included 11 studies considering return to work following psychological interventions among a subgroup of 615 participants in the meta-analysis. Most interventions used some form of counselling to address participants' disease-related anxieties and provided information on the causes and course of CHD to dispel misconceptions. We do not know if these interventions increase return to work up to six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.40; six studies; very low-certainty evidence) or at six to 12 months (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; seven studies; very low-certainty evidence). We also do not know if psychological interventions shorten the time until return to work. Psychological interventions may have little or no effect on the proportion of participants working between one and five years (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.34; three studies; low-certainty evidence).Person-directed, work-directed counselling versus usual careFour studies examined work-directed counselling. These counselling interventions included advising patients when to return to work based on treadmill testing or extended counselling to include co-workers' fears and misconceptions regarding CHD. Work-directed counselling may result in little to no difference in the mean difference (MD) in days until return to work (MD -7.52 days, 95% CI -20.07 to 5.03 days; four studies; low-certainty evidence). Work-directed counselling probably results in little to no difference in cardiac deaths (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.39; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Person-directed, physical conditioning interventions versus usual careNine studies examined the impact of exercise programmes. Compared to usual care, we do not know if physical interventions increase return to work up to six months (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; four studies; very low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions may result in little to no difference in return-to-work rates at six to 12 months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.20; five studies; low-certainty evidence), and may also result in little to no difference on the rates of patients working after one year (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; two studies; low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions may result in little to no difference in the time needed to return to work (MD -7.86 days, 95% CI -29.46 to 13.74 days; four studies; low-certainty evidence). Physical conditioning interventions probably do not increase cardiac death rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.80; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Person-directed, combined interventions versus usual careWe included 13 studies considering return to work following combined interventions in the meta-analysis. Combined cardiac rehabilitation programmes may have increased return to work up to six months (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.98; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5; four studies; low-certainty evidence), and may have little to no difference on return-to-work rates at six to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; 10 studies; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if combined interventions increased the proportions of participants working between one and five years (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.37; six studies; very low-certainty evidence) or at five years (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.38; four studies; very low-certainty evidence). Combined interventions probably shortened the time needed until return to work (MD -40.77, 95% CI -67.19 to -14.35; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Combining interventions probably results in little to no difference in reinfarctions (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.40; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Work-directed, interventionsWe found no studies exclusively examining strictly work-directed interventions at the workplace.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combined interventions may increase return to work up to six months and probably reduce the time away from work. Otherwise, we found no evidence of either a beneficial or harmful effect of person-directed interventions. The certainty of the evidence for the various interventions and outcomes ranged from very low to moderate. Return to work was typically a secondary outcome of the studies, and as such, the results pertaining to return to work were often poorly reported. Adhering to RCT reporting guidelines could greatly improve the evidence of future research. A research gap exists regarding controlled trials of work-directed interventions, health-related quality of life within the return-to-work process, and adverse effects.

The cost-effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review of the characteristics and methodological quality of published literature

AIM

This descriptive review aimed to assess the characteristics and methodological quality of economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs according to updated economic guidelines for healthcare interventions. Recommendations will be made to inform future research addressing the impact of a physical exercise component on cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for economic evaluations of exercise-based CR programs published in English between 2000 and 2014. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to review the methodological quality of included economic evaluations.

RESULTS

Fifteen economic evaluations met the review inclusion criteria. Assessed study characteristics exhibited wide variability, particularly in their economic perspective, time horizon, setting, comparators and included costs, with significant heterogeneity in exercise dose across interventions. Ten evaluations were based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) spanning 6-24 months but often with weak or inconclusive results; two were modelling studies; and the final three utilised longer time horizons of 3.5-5 years from which findings suggest that long-term exercise-based CR results in lower costs, reduced hospitalisations and a longer cumulative patient lifetime. None of the 15 articles met all the CHEERS quality criteria, with the majority either fully or partially meeting a selection of the assessed variables.

CONCLUSION

Evidence exists supporting the cost-effectiveness of exercise-based CR for cardiovascular disease patients. However, variability in CR program delivery and weak consistency between study perspective and design limits study comparability and therefore the accumulation of evidence in support of a particular exercise regime. The generalisability of study findings was limited due to the exclusion of patients with comorbidities as would typically be found in a real-world setting. The use of longer time-horizons would be more comparable with a chronic condition and enable economic assessments of the long-term effects of CR. As none of the articles met recent reporting standards for the economic assessment of healthcare interventions, it is recommended that future studies adhere to such guidelines.

Cardiac rehabilitation costs

BACKGROUND

Despite the clinical benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and its cost-effectiveness, it is not widely received. Arguably, capacity could be greatly increased if lower-cost models were implemented. The aims of this review were to describe: the costs associated with CR delivery, approaches to reduce these costs, and associated implications.

METHODS

Upon finalizing the PICO statement, information scientists were enlisted to develop the search strategy of MEDLINE, Embase, CDSR, Google Scholar and Scopus. Citations identified were considered for inclusion by the first author. Extracted cost data were summarized in tabular format and qualitatively synthesized.

RESULTS

There is wide variability in the cost of CR delivery around the world, and patients pay out-of-pocket for some or all of services in 55% of countries. Supervised CR costs in high-income countries ranged from PPP$294 (Purchasing Power Parity; 2016 United States Dollars) in the United Kingdom to PPP$12,409 in Italy, and in middle-income countries ranged from PPP$146 in Venezuela to PPP$1095 in Brazil. Costs relate to facilities, personnel, and session dose. Delivering CR using information and communication technology (mean cost PPP$753/patient/program), lowering the dose and using lower-cost personnel and equipment are important strategies to consider in containing costs, however few explicitly low-cost models are available in the literature.

CONCLUSION

More research is needed regarding the costs to deliver CR in community settings, the cost-effectiveness of CR in most countries, and the economic impact of return-to-work with CR participation. A low-cost model of CR should be standardized and tested for efficacy across multiple healthcare systems.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the single most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people live with CHD and may need support to manage their symptoms and prognosis. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) aims to improve the health and outcomes of people with CHD. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of exercise-based CR (exercise training alone or in combination with psychosocial or educational interventions) compared with usual care on mortality, morbidity and HRQL in patients with CHD.To explore the potential study level predictors of the effectiveness of exercise-based CR in patients with CHD.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches from the previous Cochrane review, by searching Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2014) from December 2009 to July 2014. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Science Citation Index Expanded (December 2009 to July 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise-based interventions with at least six months' follow-up, compared with a no exercise control. The study population comprised men and women of all ages who have had a myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or who have angina pectoris, or coronary artery disease. We included RCTs that reported at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, MI, revascularisations, hospitalisations, health-related quality of life (HRQL), or costs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on the above inclusion and exclusion criteria. One author extracted data from the included trials and assessed their risk of bias; a second review author checked data. We stratified meta-analysis by the duration of follow up of trials, i.e. short-term: 6 to 12 months, medium-term: 13 to 36 months, and long-term: > 3 years.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 63 trials which randomised 14,486 people with CHD. This latest update identified 16 new trials (3872 participants). The population included predominantly post-MI and post-revascularisation patients and the mean age of patients within the trials ranged from 47.5 to 71.0 years. Women accounted for fewer than 15% of the patients recruited. Overall trial reporting was poor, although there was evidence of an improvement in quality of reporting in more recent trials.As we found no significant difference in the impact of exercise-based CR on clinical outcomes across follow-up, we focused on reporting findings pooled across all trials at their longest follow-up (median 12 months). Exercise-based CR reduced cardiovascular mortality compared with no exercise control (27 trials; risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.86). There was no reduction in total mortality with CR (47 trials, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04). The overall risk of hospital admissions was reduced with CR (15 trials; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.96) but there was no significant impact on the risk of MI (36 trials; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.04), CABG (29 trials; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16) or PCI (18 trials; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.04).There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity across trials for all event outcomes, and there was evidence of small study bias for MI and hospitalisation, but no other outcome. Predictors of clinical outcomes were examined across the longest follow-up of studies using univariate meta-regression. Results show that benefits in outcomes were independent of participants' CHD case mix (proportion of patients with MI), type of CR (exercise only vs comprehensive rehabilitation) dose of exercise, length of follow-up, trial publication date, setting (centre vs home-based), study location (continent), sample size or risk of bias.Given the heterogeneity in outcome measures and reporting methods, meta-analysis was not undertaken for HRQL. In five out of 20 trials reporting HRQL using validated measures, there was evidence of significant improvement in most or all of the sub-scales with exercise-based CR compared to control at follow-up. Four trial-based economic evaluation studies indicated exercise-based CR to be a potentially cost-effective use of resources in terms of gain in quality-adjusted life years.The quality of the evidence for outcomes reported in the review was rated using the GRADE method. The quality of the evidence varied widely by outcome and ranged from low to moderate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane review supports the conclusions of the previous version of this review that, compared with no exercise control, exercise-based CR reduces the risk of cardiovascular mortality but not total mortality. We saw a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalisation with CR but not in the risk of MI or revascularisation. We identified further evidence supporting improved HRQL with exercise-based CR. More recent trials were more likely to be well reported and include older and female patients. However, the population studied in this review still consists predominantly of lower risk individuals following MI or revascularisation. Further well conducted RCTs are needed to assess the impact of exercise-based CR in higher risk CHD groups and also those presenting with stable angina. These trials should include validated HRQL outcome measures, explicitly report clinical event outcomes including mortality and hospital admissions, and assess costs and cost-effectiveness.

Motivation, Psychological Distress and Exercise Adherence Following Myocardial Infarction

Fifty patients with myocardial infarction were recruited from a hospital based Cardiac Education and Assessment Program (CEAP) in Sydney, Australia. The Exercise Motivation Inventory-2 (EMI-2) and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) were administered prior to commencement in the program and re-administered by telephone interview at 5-month followup. Four exercise adherence measures were completed: attendance, exercise stress test, self-report ratings and a 7-day activity recall interview. There was a 46% adherence rate for MI patients during the hospital based CEAP. Of those individuals who completed CEAP, 91% obtained functional improvement on the exercise stress test. For the 38 patients who were followed-up by telephone interview at 5 months, 71% were exercising according to CEAP prescription. Higher levels of anxiety were associated with lower levels of self-reported exercise adherence. The 3 strongest motivations for exercise in this group of MI patients were all health related; wanting to be free from illness, maintaining good health and recovering from the effects of coronary heart disease. The discussion highlights the implications of these findings for cardiac rehabilitation programs and the need for empirically driven guidelines for measuring exercise adherence.

Cost-effectiveness of a Population-based Lifestyle Intervention to Promote Healthy Weight and Physical Activity in Non-attenders of Cardiac Rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of two home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) interventions (Healthy Weight (HW) and Physical Activity (PA)) for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), who had been referred to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) but had not attended. The interventions consisted of pedometer-based telephone coaching sessions on weight, nutrition and physical activity (HW group) or physical activity only (PA group) and were compared to a control group who received information brochures about physical activity.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using data from two randomised controlled trials. One trial compared HW to PA (PANACHE study), and the second compared PA to usual care. A Markov model was developed which used one risk factor, body mass index (BMI) to determine the CVD risk level and mortality. Patient-level data from the trials were used to determine the transitions to CVD states and healthcare related costs. The model was run for separate cohorts of males and females. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Given a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, in the long run, both the HW and PA interventions are cost-effective compared with usual care. While the HW intervention is more effective, it also costs more than both the PA intervention and the control group due to higher intervention costs. However, the HW intervention is still cost-effective relative to the PA intervention for both men and women. Sensitivity analysis suggests that the results are robust.

CONCLUSION

The results of this paper provide evidence of the long-term cost-effectiveness of home-based CR interventions for patients who are referred to CR but do not attend. Both the HW and PA interventions can be recommended as cost-effective home-based CR programs, especially for people lacking access to hospital services or who are unable to participate in traditional CR programs.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of cardiac rehabilitation

Background

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR), a multidisciplinary program consisting of exercise, risk factor modification and psychosocial intervention, forms an integral part of managing patients after myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization surgery and percutaneous coronary interventions, as well as patients with heart failure (HF). This systematic review seeks to examine the cost-effectiveness of CR for patients with MI or HF and inform policy makers in Singapore on published cost-effectiveness studies on CR.

Methods

Electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, NHS EED, PEDro, CINAHL) were searched from inception to May 2010 for published economic studies. Additional references were identified through searching bibliographies of included studies. Two independent reviewers selected eligible publications based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using Drummond’s checklist.

Results

A total of 22 articles were selected for review. However five articles were further excluded because they were cost-minimization analyses, whilst one included patients with stroke. Of the final 16 articles, one article addressed both centre-based cardiac rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation, as well as home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus no rehabilitation. Therefore, nine studies compared cost-effectiveness between centre-based supervised CR and no CR; three studies examined that between centre- and home based CR; one between inpatient and outpatient CR; and four between home-based CR and no CR. These studies were characterized by differences in the study perspectives, economic study designs and time frames, as well as variability in clinical data and assumptions made on costs. Overall, the studies suggested that: (1) supervised centre-based CR was highly cost-effective and the dominant strategy when compared to no CR; (2) home-based CR was no different from centre-based CR; (3) no difference existed between inpatient and outpatient CR; and (4) home-based programs were generally cost-saving compared to no CR.

Conclusions

Overall, all the studies supported the implementation of CR for MI and HF. However, comparison across studies highlighted wide variability of CR program design and delivery. Policy makers need to exercise caution when generalizing these findings to the Singapore context.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions based on physical exercise in the treatment of various diseases: A systematic literature review

Objectives:The aim of this study was to review studies reporting cost-effectiveness of exercise-based interventions in treatment of various diseases.

Methods:Systematic literature search using several databases. Abstracts initially screened independently by two authors, full-text articles again evaluated by two authors, who decided whether an article should be included. Included were scientifically valid articles describing controlled studies that included an exercise-based intervention in the treatment of an established medical condition, and also reported on the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, or its effect on the utilization of health services. Quality was assessed with an established approach.

Results:A total of 914 articles were identified, of them 151 were obtained for closer review. Sixty-five articles describing sixty-one studies were included. Most (82 percent) were randomized trials. Twenty-eight studies dealt with musculoskeletal disorders, fifteen with cardiology, four with rheumatic diseases, four with pulmonary diseases, three with urinary incontinence, and two with vascular disorders. There was one study each in the fields of oncology, chronic fatigue, endocrinology, psychiatry, and neurology. Exercise interventions in musculoskeletal disorders were deemed to be cost-effective in 54 percent, in cardiology in 60 percent, and in rheumatic diseases in 75 percent of the cases. There was some evidence that exercise might be cost-effective in intermittent claudication, breast cancer patients, diabetes, and schizophrenia.

Conclusions:The number of studies assessing cost-effectiveness of exercise interventions in various diseases is still limited. The results show large variation but suggest that some exercise interventions can be cost-effective. Most convincing evidence was found for rehabilitation of cardiac and back pain patients; however, even in these cases, the evidence was partly contradictory.

Assessment of the quality of cost analysis literature in physical therapy

BACKGROUND

Policy makers, payers, and other stakeholders increasingly call for greater evidence of the cost-effectiveness of health care interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this study were to identify and rate the quality of cost analysis literature in physical therapy and to report summary information on the findings from the reviewed studies.

DESIGN

This study was a targeted literature review and rating of relevant studies published in the last decade using a quality evaluation tool for economic studies.

MEASUREMENTS

The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to obtain quality scores.

RESULTS

Ninety-five in-scope studies were identified and rated using the QHES instrument. The average quality score was 82.2 (SD=15.8), and 81 of the studies received a score of 70 or higher, placing them in the "good" to "excellent" quality range. Investigators in nearly two thirds of the studies found the physical therapy intervention under investigation to be cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The small number of studies meeting the inclusion criteria was a limitation of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the literature regarding the cost-effectiveness of physical therapy is very good, although the magnitude of this body of literature is small. Greater awareness of the strengths and limitations of cost analyses in physical therapy should provide guidance for conducting high-quality cost-effectiveness studies as demand increases for demonstrations of the value of physical therapy.

Long-term risk factor control after a cardiac rehabilitation programme

This study examined the hypothesis that Phase II cardiac rehabilitation participants (CRP) had better long-term risk factor control, self-rated perception of health and return to work rates than non-participants (NP) between 18 and 36 months post myocardial infarction (MI). It was a comparative study in a 550 bed hospital. Approximately half of both groups did not achieve a total cholesterol (TC) of 5.5 mmol/L or less. Compared with NP, CRP were significantly more likely to have a TC < = 6.5 mmol/L (7% vs. 28%) (p = 0.006). NP with TC > 6.5 mmol/L were significantly less likely to be on treatment (p = 0.002). CRP were more likely to regularly exercise than NP (79% vs. 61%) (p = 0.038). The success rate for blood pressure targets, return to work rates and self-rated perception of health were similar in both groups. In conclusion, CRP had better long-term control of some risk factors than NP. The study provides comparative longer-term patient outcomes after an Australian cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme and forms the basis for further outcome measurement.

Cardiology at Westmead Hospital from 1990 to 2007

Professor John Uther was the Director of Cardiology at Westmead Hospital from 1979 to 1990. Professor David Ross and Dr Pramesh Kovoor followed in this capacity subsequently. Networking between Westmead and metropolitan hospitals was established by conjoint appointment of cardiologists across the facilities. Westmead has maintained its excellence in electrophysiology with leadership in operative/catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, development of catheter for mapping tricuspid annulus, multi-electrode mapping and intramural ablation of ventricular tachycardia and paediatric electrophysiology. Dr. Hugh Paterson became the Director of Cardiothoracic Surgery in 2006. The previous Directors were Dr. David Johnson, Dr. Graham Nunn and Associate Professor Richard Chard. Westmead established an area-wide acute infarct angioplasty service for all patients presenting to any facility in Western Sydney along with triage of chest pain in the ambulance in 2004. Collaborative sessions with vascular surgeons for non-coronary interventions commenced in 2005. In the future, Westmead will continue its excellence in vascular and electrophysiological interventions. Imaging (echocardiography, computerised tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) will be a major part of the service. Innovation in basic science is likely. Overall, it will be an exciting time to be a cardiologist, vascular surgeon or cardiothoracic surgeon at Westmead.

Return to full normal activities including work at two weeks after acute myocardial infarction

Patients are generally advised to return to full normal activities, including work, 6 to 8 weeks after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We assessed the outcomes of early return to normal activities, including work at 2 weeks, after AMI in patients who were stratified to be at a low risk for future cardiac events. Patients were considered for randomization before discharge if they had no angina, had left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, a negative result from a symptom-limited exercise stress test for ischemia (<2 mm ST depression) at 1 week, and achieved >7 METs. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <40% were included only if they did not have inducible ventricular tachycardia at electrophysiologic studies. Seventy-two patients were randomized to return to normal activities at 2 weeks and 70 patients to undergo standard cardiac rehabilitation and return to normal activities at 6 weeks after AMI. There were no deaths or heart failure in either group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of reinfarction, revascularization, left ventricular function, lipids, body mass index, smoking, or exercise test results at 6 months. In conclusion, return to full normal activities, including work at 2 weeks, after AMI appears to be safe in patients who are stratified to a low-risk group. This should have significant medical and socioeconomic implications.