Cost-effectiveness analysis of a cardio-oncology rehabilitation framework compared to an exercise intervention for cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk
Authors' conclusion
The CORE trial shows that CBCR is a cost-effective intervention in the management of cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk
Study context
- Population
- Adult cancer survivors with previous cardiotoxic cancer treatment and/or previous CVD (high CV risk)75 completed
- Participants
- 80 survivors
- Comparison
- Centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) vs community-based exercise training (CBET)
- CBCRn = 38
- CBETn = 37reference
- Primary endpoint
- Cost-effectiveness (healthcare resource use and costs, QALYs, ICER from a societal perspective)
Methodological detailssingle-centre, prospective, pre-specified secondary endpoint, cost-effectiveness analysis, societal perspective
- Single-centre
- Prospective
- Pre-specified secondary endpoint
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Societal perspective
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
CBCR vs CBETDifference, € (95% CI)P value
Cost per patient
138.44(116.82–160.05)
P < 0.01- Favouring CBCR
- difference 0.100 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI −0.163 to −0.037); P = 0.002
- CBCR
- Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) 1383.24 € per QALY gained
- Probability CBCR cost-effective at WTP €5000 per QALY
- 99.9% (95% CI, 99.4-100.0)
Original publication
Cost-effectiveness analysis of a cardio-oncology rehabilitation framework compared to an exercise intervention for cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk. Eur J Prev Cardiol. Published 24 May 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →