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 medRxiv
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 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.7%
2
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
10.1%
4
The Lancet Healthy Longevity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
5
Age and Ageing
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
7
Alzheimer's & Dementia
143 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.9%
8
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
9
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
10
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.7%
13
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
14
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
16
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
38 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
17
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
18
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
19
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
20
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
21
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
22
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.9%
23
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
24
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
25
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
26
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
27
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
28
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
29
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%