Cardiac telerehabilitation in a middle-income country: analysis of adherence, effectiveness and cost through a randomized clinical trial

Metrics for Evaluating Telemedicine in Randomized Controlled Trials: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Telemedicine involves medical, diagnostic, and treatment-related services using telecommunication technology. Not only does telemedicine contribute to improved patient quality of life and satisfaction by reducing travel time and allowing patients to be seen in their usual environment, but it also has the potential to improve disease management by making it easier for patients to see a doctor. Recently, owing to IT developments, research on telemedicine has been increasing; however, its usefulness and limitations in randomized controlled trials remain unclear because of the multifaceted effects of telemedicine. Furthermore, the specific metrics that can be used as cross-disciplinary indicators when comparing telemedicine and face-to-face care also remain undefined.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to provide an overview of the general and cross-disciplinarity metrics used to compare telemedicine with in-person care in randomized controlled trials. In addition, we identified previously unevaluated indicators and suggested those that should be prioritized in future clinical trials.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for publications that met the inclusion criteria according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews). Original, English-language articles on randomized controlled trials comparing some forms of telemedicine with face-to-face care from January 2019 to March 2024 were included, and the basic information and general metrics used in these studies were summarized.

RESULTS

Of the 2275 articles initially identified, 79 were included in the final analysis. The commonly used metrics that can be used across medical specialties were divided into the following 3 categories: (1) patient-centeredness (67/79, 85%), including patient satisfaction, workload, and quality of life; (2) patient outcomes (57/79, 72%), including general clinical parameters such as death, admission, and adverse events; and (3) cost-effectiveness (40/79, 51%), including cost assessment and quality-adjusted life year. Notably, only 25 (32%) of 79 studies evaluated all the 3 categories. Other metrics, such as staff convenience, system usability, and environmental impact, were extracted as indicators in different directions from the three categories above, although few previous reports have evaluated them (staff convenience: 8/79, 10%; system usability: 3/79, 4%; and environmental impact: 2/79, 3%).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant variation was observed in the metrics used across previous studies. Notably, general indicators should be used to enhance the understandability of the results for people in other areas, even if disease-specific indicators are used. In addition, indicators should be established to include all three commonly used categories of measures to ensure a comprehensive evaluation: patient-centeredness, patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Staff convenience, system usability, and environmental impact are important indicators that should be used in future trials. Moreover, standardization of the evaluation metrics is desired for future clinical trials and studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Open Science Forum Registries YH5S7; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YH5S7.

Cost-effectiveness of metacognitive therapy for cardiac rehabilitation participants with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression: analysis of a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is increasing. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a complex intervention offered to patients with CVD, following a heart event, diagnosis or intervention, and it aims to reduce mortality and morbidity. The objective of this within-trial economic evaluation was to compare the cost-effectiveness of metacognitive therapy (MCT) plus usual care (UC) to UC, from a health and social care perspective in the UK.

METHODS

A multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN74643496) was conducted in the UK involving 332 patients with CR with elevated symptoms of anxiety and/or depression and compared group-based MCT with UC. The primary outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The time horizon of the primary analysis was a 12-month follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Uncertainty was explored by probabilistic bootstrapping. Sensitivity analyses tested the impact of the study design and assumptions on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

In the primary cost-effectiveness analysis, MCT intervention was dominant, with a cost-saving (net cost -£219; 95% CI -£1446, £1007) and QALY gains (net QALY 0.015; 95% CI -0.015, 0.045). However, there is a high level of uncertainty in the estimates. At a threshold of £30 000 per QALY, MCT intervention of around 76% was likely to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that intervention may be cost-saving and health-increasing; however, findings are uncertain and subject to limitations. Further research should aim to reduce the uncertainty in the findings (eg, with larger sample sizes) and explore potential longer-term economic benefits associated with MCT in this setting.

Feasibility and effectiveness of cardiac telerehabilitation for older adults with coronary heart disease: A pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiac rehabilitation is a beneficial multidisciplinary treatment of exercise promotion, patient education, risk factor management, and psychosocial counseling for people with coronary heart disease (CHD) that is underutilized due to substantial disparities in access, referral, and participation. Empirical studies suggest that cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) have safety and efficacy comparable to traditional in-person cardiac rehabilitation, however, older adults are under-reported with effectiveness, feasibility, and usability remains unclear.

METHODS

The study randomized 43 older adults (84 % males) to the 12-week CTR intervention or standard of care. Guided by Social Cognitive Theory, participants received individualized in-person assessment and e-coaching sessions, followed by CTR usage at home. Data were collected at baseline (T0), six-week (T1), and 12-week (T2).

RESULTS

Participants in the CTR intervention group showed significant improvement in daily steps (T1: β = 4126.58, p = 0.001; T2: β = 5285, p = 0.01) and health-promoting lifestyle profile (T1: β = 23.26, p < 0.001; T2: β = 12.18, p = 0.008) across study endpoints. Twenty participants completed the intervention, with 40 % used the website for data-uploading or experiential learning, 90 % used the pedometer for tele-monitoring. Improving awareness of rehabilitation and an action focus were considered key facilitators while physical discomforts and difficulties in using the technology were described as the main barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

The CTR is feasible, safe and effective in improving physical activity and healthy behaviors in older adults with CHD. Considering the variation in individual cardiovascular risk factors, full-scale RCT with a larger sample is needed to determine the effect of CTR on psychological symptoms, body weight and blood pressure, and quality of life.

Comparative efficacy and adherence of telehealth cardiac rehabilitation interventions for patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Traditional center-based cardiac rehabilitation had low adherence rates. With the increasing utilization of digital technology in healthcare services, telehealth can overcome common barriers to improve adherence, and some telehealth interventions have been proven safe and effective. However, it remains unclear which telehealth intervention types can maximize the efficacy and adherence for cardiac rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of different types of telehealth interventions on the efficacy and adherence of patients with cardiovascular disease in cardiac rehabilitation.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL, ProQuest, Scopus, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials of telehealth cardiac rehabilitation for cardiovascular disease patients from January 2013 to March 2024. The primary outcomes were peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak) and adherence. Secondary outcomes included 6-minute walking distance, moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity, depression, self-reported quality of life, and patient satisfaction. The study protocol has been registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023459643).

RESULTS

This network meta-analysis included 46 randomized controlled trials. The results indicated that telehealth cardiac rehabilitation improved VO2 peak, 6-minute walking distance, moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity, and adherence. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) results showed that the Wearable Devices + Smartphone Applications (SUCRA = 86.8 %, mean rank = 1.7) was the most effective telehealth intervention for improving VO2 peak. The Smartphone Applications + Instant Communication Tools (SUCRA = 74.2 %, mean rank = 2.6) was the most effective telehealth intervention for promoting adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining two or more types of telehealth interventions was found to be effective. Future efforts should prioritize conducting high-quality randomized controlled trials to identify more effective combinations with traditional cardiac rehabilitation.

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based and technology-supported cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation, especially during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009, 2015, and 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of home-based (which may include digital/telehealth interventions) and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 16 September 2022. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, sports/community centre) with home-based programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms) in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, or who had undergone revascularisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on predefined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three new trials in this update, bringing a total of 24 trials that have randomised a total of 3046 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. A further nine studies were identified and are awaiting classification. Manual searching of trial registers until 16 September 2022 revealed a further 14 clinical trial registrations - these are ongoing. Participants had a history of acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation, or heart failure. Although there was little evidence of high risk of bias, a number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias; in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported. No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in our primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow-up: total mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1647; studies = 12/comparisons = 14; low-certainty evidence) or exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.04; participants = 2343; studies = 24/comparisons = 28; low-certainty evidence). The majority of evidence (N=71 / 77 comparisons of either total or domain scores) showed no significant difference in health-related quality of life up to 24 months follow-up between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a similar level of trial completion (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; participants = 2638; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low-certainty evidence) between home-based and centre-based participants. The cost per patient of centre- and home-based programmes was similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update supports previous conclusions that home- (± digital/telehealth platforms) and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation formally supported by healthcare staff seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction, or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of healthcare professional supervised home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms), especially important in the context of the ongoing global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that has much limited patients in face-to-face access of hospital and community health services. Where settings are able to provide both supervised centre- and home-based programmes, consideration of the preference of the individual patient would seem appropriate. Although not included in the scope of this review, there is an increasing evidence base supporting the use of hybrid models that combine elements of both centre-based and home-based cardiac rehabilitation delivery. Further data are needed to determine: (1) whether the short-term effects of home/digital-telehealth and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation models of delivery can be confirmed in the longer term; (2) the relative clinical effectiveness and safety of home-based programmes for other heart patients, e.g. post-valve surgery and atrial fibrillation.

The cost-effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac telerehabilitation intervention: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Alternatives such as remotely delivered therapy in the home environment or telehealth represent an opportunity to increase overall cardiac rehabilitation (CR) utilization. Implementing alternatives into regular practice is the next step in development; however, the cost aspect is essential for policymakers. Limited economic budgets lead to cost-effectiveness analyses before implementation. They are appropriate in cases where there is evidence that the compared intervention provides a similar health benefit to usual care. This systematic review aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of exercise-based telehealth CR interventions compared to standard exercise-based CR.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to August 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials assessing patients undergoing telehealth CR. The intervention was compared to standard CR protocols. The primary intent was to identify the cost-effectiveness. Interventions that met the criteria were home-based telehealth CR interventions delivered by information and communications technology (telephone, computer, internet, or videoconferencing) and included the results of an economic evaluation, comparing interventions in terms of cost-effectiveness, utility, costs and benefits, or cost-minimization analysis. The systematic review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO Registry (CRD42022322531).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Out of 1525 identified studies, 67 articles were assessed for eligibility, and, at the end of the screening process, 12 studies were included in the present systematic review. Most studies (92%) included in this systematic review found strong evidence that exercise-based telehealth CR is cost-effective. Compared to CBCR, there were no major differences, except for three studies evaluating a significant difference in average cost per patient and intervention costs in favor of telehealth CR.

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth CR based on exercise is as cost-effective as CBCR interventions. Funding telehealth CR by third-party payers may promote patient participation to increase overall CR utilization. High-quality research is needed to identify the most cost-effective design.