Cost-effectiveness of exergaming compared to regular day-care activities in dementia: Results of a randomised controlled trial in The Netherlands

Exergaming for dementia and mild cognitive impairment

BACKGROUND

Dementia and mild cognitive impairment are significant contributors to disability and dependency in older adults. Current treatments for managing these conditions are limited. Exergaming, a novel technology-driven intervention combining physical exercise with cognitive tasks, is a potential therapeutic approach.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of exergaming interventions on physical and cognitive outcomes, and activities of daily living, in people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment.

SEARCH METHODS

On 22 December 2023, we searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO (World Health Organization) meta-register the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited individuals diagnosed with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Exergaming interventions involved participants being engaged in physical activity of at least moderate intensity, and used immersive and non-immersive virtual reality (VR) technology and real-time interaction. We planned to classify comparators as inactive control group (e.g. no treatment, waiting list), active control group (e.g. standard treatment, non-specific active control), or alternative treatment (e.g. physical activity, computerised cognitive training). Outcomes were to be measured using validated instruments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool RoB 2, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We consulted a third author if required. Where possible, we pooled outcome data using a fixed-effect or random-effects model. We expressed treatment effects as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When data could not be pooled, we presented a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies published between 2014 and 2023. Six of these studies were pre-registered. Seven studies involved 308 participants with mild cognitive impairment, and five studies included 228 individuals with dementia. One of the studies presented data for both MCI and dementia separately. Most comparisons exhibited a high risk or some concerns of bias. We have only low or very low certainty about all the results presented below. Effects of exergaming interventions for people with dementia Compared to a control group Exergaming may improve global cognitive functioning at the end of treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD 1.47, 95% 1.04 to 1.90; 2 studies, 113 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of exergaming at the end of treatment on global physical functioning (SMD -0.20, 95% -0.57 to 0.17; 2 studies, 113 participants) or activities of daily living (ADL) (SMD -0.28, 95% -0.65 to 0.09; 2 studies, 113 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about adverse effects due to the small sample size and no events. Findings are based on two studies (113 participants), but data could not be pooled; both studies reported no adverse reactions linked to the intervention or control group. Compared to an alternative treatment group At the end of treatment, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of exergaming on global physical functioning (SMD 0.14, 95% -0.30 to 0.58; 2 studies, 85 participants) or global cognitive functioning (SMD 0.11, 95% -0.33 to 0.55; 2 studies, 85 participants). For ADL, only one study was available (n = 67), which provided low-certainty evidence of little to no difference between exergaming and exercise. The evidence is very uncertain about adverse effects of exergaming compared with alternative treatment (RR 7.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 136.52; 2 studies, 2/85 participants). Effects of exergaming interventions for people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) Compared to a control group Exergaming may improve global cognitive functioning at the end of treatment for people with MCI, but the evidence is very uncertain, (SMD 0.79, 95% 0.05 to 1.53; 2 studies, 34 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of exergaming at the end of treatment on global physical functioning (SMD 0.27, 95% -0.41 to 0.94; 2 studies, 34 participants) and ADL (SMD 0.51, 95% -0.01 to 1.03; 2 studies, 60 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of exergaming on adverse effects due to a small sample size and no events (0/14 participants). Findings are based on one study. Compared to an alternative treatment group The evidence is very uncertain about global physical functioning at the end of treatment. Only one study was included (n = 45). For global cognitive functioning, we included four studies (n = 235 participants), but due to considerable heterogeneity (I² = 96%), we could not pool results. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of exergaming on global cognitive functioning. No study evaluated ADL outcomes. The evidence is very uncertain about adverse effects of exergaming due to the small sample size and no events (n = 123 participants). Findings are based on one study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of exergaming on global physical and cognitive functioning, and ADL. There may be an improvement in global cognitive functioning at the end of treatment for both people with dementia and people with MCI, but the evidence is very uncertain. The potential benefit is observed only when exergaming is compared with a control intervention (e.g. usual care, listening to music, health education), and not when compared with an alternative treatment with a specific effect, such as physical activity (e.g. standing and sitting exercises or cycling). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of exergaming on adverse effects. All sessions took place in a controlled and supervised environment. Therefore, we do not know if exergaming can be safely used in a home environment, unsupervised.

Cost-effectiveness of the FindMyApps eHealth intervention vs. digital care as usual: results from a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Despite growing interest, the cost-effectiveness of eHealth interventions for supporting quality of life of people with dementia and their caregivers remains unclear. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the FindMyApps intervention, compared to digital care-as-usual. FindMyApps aims to help people with dementia and their caregivers find and learn to use tablet apps that may support social participation and self-management of people with dementia and sense of competence of caregivers.

METHOD

A randomised controlled trial (Netherlands Trial Register NL8157) was conducted, including people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia and their informal caregivers (FindMyApps n = 76, digital care-as-usual n = 74). Outcomes for people with MCI/dementia were Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs), calculated from EQ-5D-5L data and the Dutch tariff for utility scores, social participation (Maastricht Social Participation Profile) and quality of life (Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit), and for caregivers, QALYs and sense of competence (Short Sense of Competence Questionnaire). Societal costs were calculated using data collected with the RUD-lite instrument and the Dutch costing guideline. Multiple imputation was employed to fill in missing cost and effect data. Bootstrapped multilevel models were used to estimate incremental total societal costs and incremental effects between groups which were then used to calculate Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated.

RESULTS

In the FindMyApps group, caregiver SSCQ scores were significantly higher compared to care-as-usual, n = 150, mean difference = 0.75, 95% CI [0.14, 1.38]. Other outcomes did not significantly differ between groups. Total societal costs for people with dementia were not significantly different, n = 150, mean difference = €-774, 95%CI [-2.643, .,079]. Total societal costs for caregivers were significantly lower in the FindMyApps group compared to care-as-usual, n = 150, mean difference = € -392, 95% CI [-1.254, -26], largely due to lower supportive care costs, mean difference = €-252, 95% CI [-1.009, 42]. For all outcomes, the probability that FindMyApps was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0 per point of improvement was 0.72 for people with dementia and 0.93 for caregivers.

CONCLUSION

FindMyApps is a cost-effective intervention for supporting caregivers' sense of competence. Further implementation of FindMyApps is warranted.

Cost-Effectiveness of Non-pharmacological Interventions for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations and a Review of Reviews

BACKGROUND

Dementia prevalence is increasing, with no cure at present. Drug therapies have potential side effects and risk of mortality. People with dementia are frequently offered non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life and relieve symptoms. Identifying which interventions are cost-effective is important due to finite resources in healthcare services.

AIMS

The aims were to review published economic evaluations of community and nursing home non-pharmacological interventions for people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia and assess the usefulness of these evaluations for decision making in health services, for use by policy and local and national decision makers.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021252999) of economic evaluations of non-pharmacological interventions for dementia or mild cognitive impairment with a narrative approach to data synthesis.

EXCLUSIONS

interventions for dementia prevention/early detection/end of life care. Databases searched: Academic Search Premier, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycArticles, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Business Source Premier and Regional Business News; timeframe 1 January 2011-11 May 2023. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).

RESULTS

The review included 37 economic evaluations and four reviews worldwide across several distinct forms of care: physical activity, cognition, training, multicomponent, assistive technology and other (specialist dementia care, group living, home care vs care home). The intervention with the strongest evidence of cost-effectiveness was maintenance cognitive stimulation therapy. Case management, occupational therapy and dementia care management also showed good evidence of cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

More economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of specific dementia care interventions is needed, with consistency of methods and outcome measures. This could improve local and national decision makers' confidence to promote future cost-effective dementia interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions for prevention and management of cognitive decline and dementia-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although increasing physical activity (PA) has been suggested to prevent and manage cognitive decline and dementia, its economic impact on healthcare systems and society is largely unknown. This study aimed to summarize evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PA interventions to prevent and manage cognitive decline and dementia.

METHODS

Electronic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and ScienceDirect, were searched from January 2000 to July 2023. The search strategy was driven by a combination of subject-heading terms related to physical activity, cognitive function, dementia, and cost-effectiveness. Selected studies were included in narrative synthesis, and extracted data were presented in narrative and tabular forms. The risk of bias in each study was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list.

RESULTS

Five of the 11 identified studies focused on individuals with existing dementia. Six of the 11 identified studies focused on individuals with no existing dementia, including 3 on those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 3 on those with no existing MCI or dementia. PA interventions focused on individuals with no existing dementia were found to be cost-effective compared to the control group. Findings were mixed for PA interventions implemented in individuals with existing dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

PA interventions implemented before or during the early stage of cognitive impairment may be cost-effective in reducing the burden of dementia. More research is needed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of PA interventions in managing dementia. Most existing studies used short-term outcomes in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of PA interventions in the prevention and management of dementia; future research should consider adding long-term outcomes to strengthen the study design.

The Costs of Dementia in Europe: An Updated Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The prevalence of dementia is increasing, while new opportunities for diagnosing, treating and possibly preventing Alzheimer's disease and other dementia disorders are placing focus on the need for accurate estimates of costs in dementia. Considerable methodological heterogeneity creates challenges for synthesising the existing literature. This study aimed to estimate the costs for persons with dementia in Europe, disaggregated into cost components and informative patient subgroups.

METHODS

We conducted an updated literature review searching PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for studies published from 2008 to July 2021 reporting empirically based cost estimates for persons with dementia in European countries. We excluded highly selective or otherwise biased reports, and used a random-effects meta-analysis to produce estimates of mean costs of care across five European regions.

RESULTS

Based on 113 studies from 17 European countries, the estimated mean costs for all patients by region were highest in the British Isles (73,712 EUR), followed by the Nordics (43,767 EUR), Southern (35,866 EUR), Western (38,249 EUR), and Eastern Europe and Baltics (7938 EUR). Costs increased with disease severity, and the distribution of costs over informal and formal care followed a North-South gradient with Southern Europe being most reliant on informal care.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this study represents the most extensive meta-analysis of the cost for persons with dementia in Europe to date. Though there is considerable heterogeneity across studies, much of this is explained by identifiable factors. Further standardisation of methodology for capturing resource utilisation data may further improve comparability of future studies. The cost estimates presented here may be of value for cost-of-illness studies and economic evaluations of novel diagnostic technologies and therapies for Alzheimer's disease.