The cost effectiveness of REACH-HF and home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with the usual medical care for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A decision model-based analysis - PubMed (original) (raw)

Meta-Analysis

. 2019 Aug;26(12):1252-1261.

doi: 10.1177/2047487319833507. Epub 2019 Mar 18.

Susannah Sadler 1, Hasnain M Dalal 2, Fiona C Warren 1, Kate Jolly 3, Russell C Davis 4, Patrick Doherty 5, Jackie Miles 6, Colin Greaves 7, Jennifer Wingham 1, Melvyn Hillsdon 8, Charles Abraham 7, Julia Frost 1, Sally Singh 9, Christopher Hayward 10, Victoria Eyre 11, Kevin Paul 12, Chim C Lang 13, Karen Smith 14

Affiliations

Meta-Analysis

The cost effectiveness of REACH-HF and home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with the usual medical care for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A decision model-based analysis

Rod S Taylor et al. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Aug.

Abstract

Background: The REACH-HF (Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure) trial found that the REACH-HF home-based cardiac rehabilitation intervention resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement in disease-specific health-related quality of life in patients with reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF). The aims of this study were to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of the addition of REACH-HF intervention or home-based cardiac rehabilitation to usual care compared with usual care alone in patients with HFrEF.

Design and methods: A Markov model was developed using a patient lifetime horizon and integrating evidence from the REACH-HF trial, a systematic review/meta-analysis of randomised trials, estimates of mortality and hospital admission and UK costs at 2015/2016 prices. Taking a UK National Health and Personal Social Services perspective we report the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, assessing uncertainty using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.

Results: In base case analysis, the REACH-HF intervention was associated with per patient mean QALY gain of 0.23 and an increased mean cost of £400 compared with usual care, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of £1720. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 78% probability that REACH-HF is cost effective versus usual care at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results were similar for home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care. Sensitivity analyses indicate the findings to be robust to changes in model assumptions and parameters.

Conclusions: Our cost-utility analyses indicate that the addition of the REACH-HF intervention and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are likely to be cost-effective treatment options versus usual care alone in patients with HFrEF.

Keywords: Cardiac rehabilitation; cost-effectiveness; decision model; health-related quality of life; heart failure; home-based.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Liao L, Allen LA, Whellan DJ. Economic burden of heart failure in the elderly. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 447–462. - PubMed
    1. Cook C, Cole G, Asaria P, et al. The annual global economic burden of heart failure. Int J Cardiol 2014; 171: 368–376. - PubMed
    1. Taylor RS, Sagar VA, Davies EJ, et al. Exercise-based rehabilitation for heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 4: CD003331. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shields GE, Wells A, Doherty P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation: A systematic review. Heart 2018; 104: 1403–1410. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62: e147–e239. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources