Back

Title: An Individually Tailored, Home-Based Supervised Exercise Programme for People with Early Dementia: An RCT-informed Health Economic Evaluation.

Ezeofor, V. S.; Hartfiel, N.; Doungsong, K.; Goldberg, S.; van der Wardt, V.; Howe, L.; Gladman, J.; Harwood, R. H.; Edwards, R. T.

2024-12-11 health economics
10.1101/2024.12.10.24318781
Show abstract

BackgroundThe effectiveness of exercise interventions to improve activities of daily living function in people with dementia is inconclusive. This study aimed to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of the PrAISED intervention from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. MethodThis novel robust economic analysis used a Markov model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime horizon of 15 years for a cohort of patients. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate the uncertainty and robustness of high-impacting parameters and results. ResultsThis study included 365 adults, aged 65 years and above with 183 and 182 randomised to the PrAISED and standard care groups respectively. The PrAISED intervention had mean per-patient cost of {pound}60,465 for the PrAISED arm and {pound}54,604 for standard care. The Praised intervention gained an incremental QALYs of 0.05 resulting in an ICER of {pound}129,614 per QALY. The sensitivity analysis of the intervention cost varied the ICER value between {pound}68,173 and {pound}191,054/QALY. To achieve the recommended NICE willingness to pay threshold value of less than {pound}30,000/QALYs would require the intervention cost to be reduced from {pound}1,236 (current cost) to {pound}263 to break even and be cost-effective. The sensitivity analyses revealed that there was a 40% probability of standard care dominating the PrAISED treatment. ConclusionsAlthough the PrAISED intervention was a low-cost intervention, it did not produce a cost-effective intervention in this analysis. The flexibility of the PrAISED program to adapt to government policy during the COVID-19 pandemic was positive. Trial registrationISRCTN15320670

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 6%
15.6%
2
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 45%
11.3%
3
PLOS Medicine
based on 95 papers
Top 0.3%
10.3%
4
BJGP Open
based on 12 papers
Top 0.2%
5.1%
5
Age and Ageing
based on 27 papers
Top 0.5%
5.1%
6
eClinicalMedicine
based on 55 papers
Top 0.2%
4.6%
50% of probability mass above
7
The Lancet Healthy Longevity
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
4.6%
8
BMC Medicine
based on 155 papers
Top 3%
4.6%
9
Alzheimer's & Dementia
based on 84 papers
Top 3%
2.5%
10
European Journal of Public Health
based on 20 papers
Top 0.9%
1.6%
11
Journal of Medical Economics
based on 10 papers
Top 0.6%
1.6%
12
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
based on 57 papers
Top 4%
1.6%
13
Addiction
based on 24 papers
Top 2%
1.3%
14
BMC Public Health
based on 148 papers
Top 18%
1.3%
15
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 11%
1.3%
16
Social Science & Medicine
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
1.3%
17
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 80%
1.2%
18
Genetics in Medicine
based on 57 papers
Top 4%
1.2%
19
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
based on 31 papers
Top 3%
1.2%
20
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
based on 12 papers
Top 0.8%
1.2%
21
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
based on 31 papers
Top 3%
1.2%
22
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
23
European Radiology
based on 11 papers
Top 3%
0.7%
24
Healthcare
based on 14 papers
Top 4%
0.7%
25
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 14%
0.7%
26
Nutrients
based on 43 papers
Top 5%
0.7%
27
BMJ Global Health
based on 95 papers
Top 13%
0.7%