Cost‐effectiveness of rehabilitation after an acute coronary event: a randomised controlled trial

• Published in: Medical journal of Australia 2005-11, Vol.183 (9), p.450-455
• Main Authors: Briffa, Tom G, Eckermann, Simon D, Griffiths, Alison D, Keech, Anthony C, Harris, Phillip J, Heath, M Rose, Freedman, Saul B, Donaldson, Lana T, Briffa, N Kathryn
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acute coronary syndromes; Adult; Aged; Angina, Unstable - economics; Angina, Unstable - rehabilitation; Angioplasty; Aortic stenosis; Biological and medical sciences; Cardiac arrhythmia; Cardiology. Vascular system; Cardiovascular disease; Cardiovascular diseases; Combined Modality Therapy - economics; Coronary heart disease; Coronary vessels; Cost analysis; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Counseling; Counseling - economics; Economics; Exercise; Exercise Therapy - economics; Female; Follow-Up Studies; General aspects; Health services; Heart; Heart attacks; Heart failure; Hospitals; Humans; Male; Medical records; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Mortality; Myocardial Infarction - economics; Myocardial Infarction - rehabilitation; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Patient Compliance; Patient Education as Topic - economics; Patients; Pharmaceuticals; Physical fitness; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Questionnaires; Regression analysis; Rehabilitation; Survival analysis; Vein & artery diseases
• ISSN: 0025-729X; 1326-5377
• DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb07121.x

Objective: To estimate the incremental effects on cost and quality of life of cardiac rehabilitation after an acute coronary syndrome. Design: Open randomised controlled trial with 1 year's follow‐up. Analysis was on an intention‐to‐treat basis. Setting: Two tertiary hospitals in Sydney. Intervention: 18 sessions of comprehensive exercise‐based outpatient cardiac rehabilitation or conventional care as provided by the treating doctor. Participants: 113 patients aged 41–75 years who were self‐caring and literate in English. Patients with uncompensated heart failure, uncontrolled arrhythmias, severe and symptomatic aortic stenosis or physical impairment were excluded. Main outcome measures: Costs (hospitalisations, medication use, outpatient visits, investigations, and personal expenses); and measures of quality of life. Incremental cost per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) saved at 1 year (this estimate combines within‐study utility effects with reported 1‐year risk of survival and treatment effects of rehabilitation on mortality). Sensitivity analyses around a base case estimate included alternative assumptions of no treatment effect on survival, 3 years of treatment effect on survival and variations in utility. Results: The estimated incremental cost per QALY saved for rehabilitation relative to standard care was $42 535 when modelling included the reported treatment effect on survival. This increased to $70 580 per QALY saved if treatment effect on survival was not included. The results were sensitive to variations in utility and ranged from $19 685 per QALY saved to rehabilitation not being cost‐effective. Conclusions: The effects on quality of life tend to reinforce treatment advantages on survival for patients having postdischarge rehabilitation after an acute coronary syndrome. The estimated base case incremental cost per QALY saved is consistent with those historically accepted by decision making authorities such as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.