Affordable web-based foot-ankle exercise program proves effective for diabetic foot care in a randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation.

The aim of this study was to shed light on a crucial issue through a comprehensive evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a cutting-edge web-based foot-ankle therapeutic exercise program (SOPeD) designed for treating modifiable risk factors for ulcer prevention in individuals with diabetes-related peripheral neuropathy (DPN). In this randomized controlled trial, 62 participants diagnosed with DPN were assigned to the SOPeD software or received usual care for diabetic foot. Primary outcomes were DPN symptoms and severity, foot pain and function, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Between-group comparisons provided 95% confidence intervals. The study also calculated incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios (ICERs), analyzed direct costs from a healthcare perspective, and performed a sensitivity analysis to assess uncertainty. The web-based intervention effectively reduced foot pain, improved foot function and showed favorable cost-effectiveness, with ICERs ranging from (USD) $5.37-$148.71 per improvement in different outcomes. There is a high likelihood of cost-effectiveness for improving DPN symptoms and severity, foot pain, and function, even when the minimum willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $1000.00 USD. However, the intervention did not prove to be cost-effective in terms of QALYs. This study reveals SOPeD's effectiveness in reducing foot pain, improving foot function, and demonstrating cost-effectiveness in enhancing functional and clinical outcomes. SOPeD stands as a potential game-changer for modifiable risk factors for ulcers, with our findings indicating a feasible and balanced integration into public health systems. Further studies and considerations are vital for informed decisions to stakeholders and the successful implementation of this preventive program on a larger scale.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04011267. Registered on 8 July 2019.

Machine learning models for assessing risk factors affecting health care costs: 12-month exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation.

Introduction: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ECR) has proven to be effective and cost-effective dominant treatment option in health care. However, the contribution of well-known risk factors for prognosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) to predict health care costs is not well recognized. Since machine learning (ML) applications are rapidly giving new opportunities to assist health care professionals' work, we used selected ML tools to assess the predictive value of defined risk factors for health care costs during 12-month ECR in patients with CAD. Methods: The data for analysis was available from a total of 71 patients referred to Oulu University Hospital, Finland, due to an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event (75% men, age 61 ± 12 years, BMI 27 ± 4 kg/m2, ejection fraction 62 ± 8, 89% have beta-blocker medication). Risk factors were assessed at the hospital immediately after the cardiac event, and health care costs for all reasons were collected from patient registers over a year. ECR was programmed in accordance with international guidelines. Risk analysis algorithms (cross-decomposition algorithms) were employed to rank risk factors based on variances in their effects. Regression analysis was used to determine the accounting value of risk factors by entering first the risk factor with the highest degree of explanation into the model. After that, the next most potent risk factor explaining costs was added to the model one by one (13 forecast models in total). Results: The ECR group used health care services during the year at an average of 1,624 ± 2,139€ per patient. Diabetes exhibited the strongest correlation with health care expenses (r = 0.406), accounting for 16% of the total costs (p < 0.001). When the next two ranked markers (body mass index; r = 0.171 and systolic blood pressure; r = - 0.162, respectively) were added to the model, the predictive value was 18% for the costs (p = 0.004). The depression scale had the weakest independent explanation rate of all 13 risk factors (explanation value 0.1%, r = 0.029, p = 0.811). Discussion: Presence of diabetes is the primary reason forecasting health care costs in 12-month ECR intervention among ACS patients. The ML tools may help decision-making when planning the optimal allocation of health care resources.

First-line treatment for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and hip-related quality of life: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing a 6-month supervised strength exercise intervention to usual care (the Better Hip Trial).

INTRODUCTION: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) is a motion-related and position-related clinical condition of the hip associated with pain, reduced physical function and hip-related quality of life (QoL). Interestingly, higher maximal muscle strength is associated with less pain, better physical function and improved QoL in people with FAIS. Furthermore, preliminary evidence suggests that a proportion of patients with FAIS respond positively to strength exercise as first-line treatment. Nonetheless, there is little evidence supporting a specific exercise intervention offered as a first-line treatment. We will conduct a randomised controlled trial investigating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month strength exercise intervention compared with usual care as first-line treatment in patients with FAIS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial that will be conducted at hospitals and physiotherapy clinics across Denmark and Australia. A total of 120 patients with FAIS will be randomised (1:1) to 6 months of supervised strength exercise or usual care. The primary outcome is the change in hip-related QoL measured using the International Hip and Outcome Tool 33 (iHOT-33) from baseline to the end of intervention. A health economic evaluation will be conducted from a societal and healthcare perspective based on the data collection over a 12-month period starting at baseline. The analysis will calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using quality-adjusted life-years and iHOT-33 scores while estimating costs using microcosting and cost questionnaires. Secondary outcomes include objectively measured physical function at baseline and after 6 months and patient-reported outcomes measured at baseline, 3-month, 6-month and 12-month follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the Committee on Health Research Ethics in the Central Denmark Region (journal no 1-10-72-45-23) and La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (HEC24042) and is registered at the Central Denmark Region List of Research Projects (journal no 1-16-02-115-23). Informed consent will be obtained from each participant before randomisation. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05927935.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention for the prevention of low back pain recurrence in Australia (WalkBack): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence of low back pain is common and a substantial contributor to the disease and economic burden of low back pain. Exercise is recommended to prevent recurrence, but the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an accessible and low-cost intervention, such as walking, is yet to be established. We aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention to prevent the recurrence of low back pain. METHODS: WalkBack was a two-armed, randomised controlled trial, which recruited adults (aged 18 years or older) from across Australia who had recently recovered from an episode of non-specific low back pain that was not attributed to a specific diagnosis, and which lasted for at least 24 h. Participants were randomly assigned to an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention facilitated by six sessions with a physiotherapist across 6 months or to a no treatment control group (1:1). The randomisation schedule comprised randomly permuted blocks of 4, 6, and 8 and was stratified by history of more than two previous episodes of low back pain and referral method. Physiotherapists and participants were not masked to allocation. Participants were followed for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 36 months, depending on the date of enrolment. The primary outcome was days to the first recurrence of an activity-limiting episode of low back pain, collected in the intention-to-treat population via monthly self-report. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the societal perspective and expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ACTRN12619001134112). FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2019, and June 10, 2022, 3206 potential participants were screened for eligibility, 2505 (78%) were excluded, and 701 were randomly assigned (351 to the intervention group and 350 to the no treatment control group). Most participants were female (565 [81%] of 701) and the mean age of participants was 54 years (SD 12). The intervention was effective in preventing an episode of activity-limiting low back pain (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·85], p=0·0002). The median days to a recurrence was 208 days (95% CI 149-295) in the intervention group and 112 days (89-140) in the control group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was AU$7802, giving a 94% probability that the intervention was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $28 000. Although the total number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event over 12 months was similar between the intervention and control groups (183 [52%] of 351 and 190 [54%] of 350, respectively, p=0·60), there was a greater number of adverse events related to the lower extremities in the intervention group than in the control group (100 in the intervention group and 54 in the control group). INTERPRETATION: An individualised, progressive walking and education intervention significantly reduced low back pain recurrence. This accessible, scalable, and safe intervention could affect how low back pain is managed. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Examining Treatments for Cachexia Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to critically evaluate and synthesize the economic outcomes of various therapeutic strategies employed to manage cachexia patients. METHODS: A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials and observational studies was conducted from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2023, using PubMed, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials Registry, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, British Medical Journal, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and ScienceDirect, following PRISMA guidelines. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards reporting guidelines. RESULTS: We identified six high to medium quality economic evaluations in four countries, focusing on cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and HIV/AIDS-associated cachexia. The results indicate that combination management strategies, specifically the use of nutritional supplements and exercise, are more cost-effective than usual care for cachexia syndrome. Additionally, two studies showed that dietary supplements alone were more cost-effective than usual care, and pharmacotherapy alone was more cost-effective than a placebo. CONCLUSION: Combining several strategies, such as nutritional supplements and exercise, may be the most economically efficient method for managing cachexia compared to usual care or single treatment approaches. However, the restricted and diverse characteristics of the current research hinder the definitive conclusions.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent frailty management program "Say No To Frailty" in Singapore: A cluster-randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: A 12-week multicomponent frailty management program - Say No To Frailty (SNTF) consisting of interactive talks and fitness exercises led by a trained program leader has shown feasibility and positive health outcomes in community-living older adults with frailty and pre-frailty in Singapore. This study aims to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of SNTF on physical functions, self-confidence, community participation, quality of life and fall reduction in the local community setting. METHODS: This study will use the cluster-randomization method to randomly allocate 12 participating centres into three arms. Centres under two intervention arms will conduct the same SNTF program but led by a program leader with different training backgrounds (an Allied Health Professional (AHP) v.s. a non-AHP), whereas centres under the control arm will continue their usual care without an additional intervention. Eligible participants at each participating centre will be recruited via the convenience sampling method in the community setting. Primary outcome measure (frailty level) and secondary outcome measures (e.g., physical functions, self-confidence, community participation, quality of life) will be conducted by the blinded assessors at baseline, immediate, 3 months and 9 months post-intervention. Fall data will be collected during the one-year study period. Outcomes between and within groups will be compared and analysed using STATA to evaluate the clinical effectiveness. Program costs and relevant healthcare costs during the follow-up phase will be recorded for cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSION: This study will provide significant insights into conducting SNTF for Singapore community-living older adults with frailty and pre-frailty on clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12621001673831.

Cost-effectiveness of strength exercise or aerobic exercise compared with usual care for patients with knee osteoarthritis: secondary results from a multiarm randomised controlled trial in Norway.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of strength exercise or aerobic exercise compared with usual care for patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA), from a societal and healthcare perspective. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis embedded in a three-arm randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A total of 161 people with symptomatic knee OA seeking Norwegian primary or secondary care were included in the analyses. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to either 12 weeks of strength exercise (n=54), 12 weeks of aerobic exercise (n=53) or usual care (n=54). OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) estimated by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels, and costs related to healthcare utilisation and productivity loss estimated in euros (€), aggregated for 1 year of follow-up. Cost-effectiveness was expressed with mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Bootstrapping was used to estimate ICER uncertainty. RESULTS: From a 1-year societal perspective, the mean cost per patient was €7954, €8101 and €17 398 in the strength exercise, aerobic exercise and usual care group, respectively. From a 1-year healthcare perspective, the mean cost per patient was €848, €2003 and €1654 in the strength exercise, aerobic exercise and usual care group, respectively. Mean differences in costs significantly favoured strength exercise and aerobic exercise from a 1-year societal perspective and strength exercise from a 1-year healthcare perspective. There were no significant differences in mean QALYs between groups. From a 1-year societal perspective, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €27 500, the probability of strength exercise or aerobic exercise being cost-effective was ≥98%. From a 1-year healthcare perspective, the probability of strength exercise or aerobic exercise being cost-effective was ≥97% and ≥76%, respectively. CONCLUSION: From a 1-year societal and healthcare perspective, a 12-week strength exercise or aerobic exercise programme is cost-effective compared with usual care in patients with symptomatic knee OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01682980.

Effects of home-based and telerehabilitation exercise on mental and physical health, and disease cost in people with Alzheimer's disease: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a very disabling long-term disease that requires continuous regular care. A cost-effective and sustainable means of such care may be physical activity or exercise delivered at home or through telerehabilitation. The aim of this study is to determine the effects of home-based or telerehabilitation exercise in people with AD. METHOD: PubMED, Embase, Web of Science (WoS), PEDro, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials until January 2024. The data extracted include the characteristics of the participants, the interventions used for both experimental and the control groups, the baseline, post-intervention and follow-up mean and standard deviation values on the outcomes assessed and the findings of the included studies. Cochrane risks of bias assessment tool and PEDro scale were used to assess the risks of bias and methodological quality of the studies. The results were analyzed using narrative and quantitative syntheses. RESULT: Eleven articles from nine studies (n=550) were included in the study. The results showed that, only global cognitive function (SMD = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.19-1.25, p=0.007), neuropsychiatric symptom (MD = -5.28, 95% CI =-6.22 to -4.34, p<0.0001) and ADL (SMD =3.12, 95% CI =0.11-6.13, p=0.04) improved significantly higher in the experimental group post-intervention. At follow-up, the significant difference was maintained only in neuropsychiatric symptoms (MD =-6.20, 95% CI =-7.17 to -5.23, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: There is a low evidence on the effects of home-based physical activity or exercise on global cognitive function, neuropsychiatric symptoms and ADL.

RCT-based Social Return on Investment (SROI) of a Home Exercise Program for People With Early Dementia Comparing In-Person and Blended Delivery Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Regular exercise and community engagement may slow the rate of function loss for people with dementia. However, the evidence is uncertain regarding the cost-effectiveness and social return on investment (SROI) of home exercise with community referral for people with dementia. This study aimed to compare the social value generated from the in-person PrAISED program delivered before March 2020 with a blended PrAISED program delivered after March 2020. SROI methodology compared in-person and blended delivery formats of a home exercise program. Stakeholders were identified, a logic model was developed, outcomes were evidenced and valued, costs were calculated, and SROI ratios were estimated. Five relevant and material outcomes were identified: 3 outcomes for patient participants (fear of falling, health-related quality of life, and social connection); 1 outcome for carer participants (carer strain), and 1 outcome for the National Health Service (NHS) (health service resource use). Data were collected at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. The in-person PrAISED program generated SROI ratios ranging from £0.58 to £2.33 for every £1 invested. In-person PrAISED patient participants gained social value from improved health-related quality of life, social connection, and less fear of falling. In-person PrAISED carer participants acquired social value from less carer strain. The NHS gained benefit from less health care service resource use. However, the blended PrAISED program generated lower SROI ratios ranging from a negative ratio to £0.08:£1. Compared with the blended program, the PrAISED in-person program generated higher SROI ratios for people with early dementia. An in-person PrAISED intervention with community referral is likely to provide better value for money than a blended one with limited community referral, despite the greater costs of the former.Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15320670.

Cost-Effectiveness of Community-Based Diet and Exercise for Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis and Obesity or Overweight.

OBJECTIVE: Obesity exacerbates pain and functional limitation in persons with knee osteoarthritis (OA). In the Weight Loss and Exercise for Communities with Arthritis in North Carolina (WE-CAN) study, a community-based diet and exercise (D + E) intervention led to an additional 6 kg weight loss and 20% greater pain relief in persons with knee OA and body mass index (BMI) >27 kg/m2 relative to a group-based health education (HE) intervention. We sought to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of the usual care (UC), UC + HE, and UC + (D + E) programs, comparing each strategy with the "next-best" strategy ranked by increasing lifetime cost. METHODS: We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model to project long-term clinical and economic benefits of the WE-CAN interventions. We considered three strategies: UC, UC + HE, and UC + (D + E). We derived cohort characteristics, weight, and pain reduction from the WE-CAN trial. Our outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: In a cohort with mean age 65 years, BMI 37 kg/m2, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score 38 (scale 0-100, 100 = worst), UC leads to 9.36 QALYs/person, compared with 9.44 QALYs for UC + HE and 9.49 QALYS for UC + (D + E). The corresponding lifetime costs are $147,102, $148,139, and $151,478. From the societal perspective, UC + HE leads to an ICER of $12,700/QALY; adding D + E to UC leads to an ICER of $61,700/QALY. CONCLUSION: The community-based D + E program for persons with knee OA and BMI >27kg/m2 could be cost-effective for willingness-to-pay thresholds greater than $62,000/QALY. These findings suggest that incorporation of community-based D + E programs into OA care may be beneficial for public health.

Review of the Evidence for Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COPD: Clinical Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness.

COPD is a common and lethal chronic condition, recognized as a leading cause of death worldwide. COPD is associated with significant morbidity and disability, particularly among older adults. The disease course is marked by periods of stability and disease exacerbations defined by worsening respiratory status resulting in a high burden of health care utilization and an increased risk of mortality. Treatment is focused on pharmacologic therapies, but these are not completely effective. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) represents a key medical intervention for patients with chronic respiratory diseases, including COPD. PR provides individualized and progressive exercise training, education, and self-management strategies through a comprehensive and multidisciplinary program. PR has been associated with improvement in exercise capacity, health-related quality of life, and dyspnea in patients living with COPD. Moreover, PR has been associated with improvements in hospital readmission and 1-y survival. In addition to the clinical benefits, PR is estimated to be a cost-effective medical intervention. Despite these benefits, participation in PR remains low. We will review the evidence for PR in each of these benefit domains among patients with stable COPD and in those recovering from a COPD exacerbation.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Group vs Individually Delivered Exercise Program in Community-Dwelling Persons Aged ≥70 Years.

OBJECTIVES: Interventions aimed at reducing falls and physical inactivity could alleviate the economic burden attributable to these factors. The study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of a group-delivered version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise Program compared with an individually delivered program version. DESIGN: An economic evaluation conducted alongside the LiFE-is-LiFE randomized non-inferiority trial. INTERVENTIONS: Group and individually delivered version of a program consisting of strength and balance exercises integrated into everyday activities to prevent falls. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 309 community-dwelling older adults (aged ≥70 years) at risk of falling recruited around Heidelberg and Stuttgart (Germany). METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of the group program was assessed over 6 months using different effect measures [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, EQ-5D-5L), physical activity (mean number of steps/day), and falls] and cost perspectives (societal and payer's). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were determined, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, mean costs, the number of falls, and the number of steps/day were somewhat higher in the group program, whereas QALYs were almost identical between the 2 interventions. From the payer's perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the group compared to the individual program were €56,733 per QALY and €4755 per fall prevented. Based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, the cost-effectiveness of the group program had to be rated as uncertain for both effect measures and perspectives. In contrast, it demonstrated cost-effectiveness for increasing physical activity at willingness-to-pay values per additional 1000 steps/day of €1600 (societal perspective) or €600 (payer's perspective). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Compared to the individual program, the group program might be cost-effective for increasing physical activity in older adults but was unlikely to be cost-effective with regard to QALY or for preventing falls. The cost-effectiveness should be evaluated long-term and compared to a regular care group.

Direct medical costs after surgical or nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal disease: A nationwide matched cohort study with a 10-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: The demand for treating degenerative lumbar spinal disease has been increasing, leading to increased utilization of medical resources. Thus, we need to understand how the budget of insurance is currently used. The objective of the present study is to overview the utilization of the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) by providing the direct insured cost between patients receiving surgery and patients receiving nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar disease. METHODS: The NHIS-National Sample Cohort was utilized to select patients with lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis or spondylolysis. A matched cohort study design was used to show direct medical costs of surgery (n = 2,698) and nonsurgical (n = 2,698) cohorts. Non-surgical treatment included medication, physiotherapy, injection, and chiropractic. The monthly costs of the surgery cohort and nonsurgical cohort were presented at initial treatment, posttreatment 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and yearly thereafter for 10 years. RESULTS: The characteristics and matching factors were well-balanced between the matched cohorts. Overall, surgery cohort spent $50.84/patient/month, while the nonsurgical cohort spent $29.34/patient/month (p<0.01). Initially, surgery treatment led to more charge to NHIS ($2,762) than nonsurgical treatment ($180.4) (p<0.01). Compared with the non-surgical cohort, the surgery cohort charged $33/month more for the first 3 months, charged less at 12 months, and charged approximately the same over the course of 10 years. CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment initially led to more government reimbursement than nonsurgical treatment, but the charges during follow-up period were not different. The results of the present study should be interpreted in light of the costs of medical services, indirect costs, societal cost, quality of life and societal willingness to pay in each country. The monetary figures are implied to be actual economic costs but those in the reimbursement system instead reflect reimbursement charges from the government.

Exercise versus usual care after non-reconstructive breast cancer surgery (UK PROSPER): multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a structured exercise programme improved functional and health related quality of life outcomes compared with usual care for women at high risk of upper limb disability after breast cancer surgery. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, superiority, randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. SETTING: 17 UK National Health Service cancer centres. PARTICIPANTS: 392 women undergoing breast cancer surgery, at risk of postoperative upper limb morbidity, randomised (1:1) to usual care with structured exercise (n=196) or usual care alone (n=196). INTERVENTIONS: Usual care (information leaflets) only or usual care plus a physiotherapy led exercise programme, incorporating stretching, strengthening, physical activity, and behavioural change techniques to support adherence to exercise, introduced at 7-10 days postoperatively, with two further appointments at one and three months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disability of Arm, Hand and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes included DASH subscales, pain, complications, health related quality of life, and resource use, from a health and personal social services perspective. RESULTS: Between 26 January 2016 and 31 July 2017, 951 patients were screened and 392 (mean age 58.1 years) were randomly allocated, with 382 (97%) eligible for intention to treat analysis. 181 (95%) of 191 participants allocated to exercise attended at least one appointment. Upper limb function improved after exercise compared with usual care (mean DASH 16.3 (SD 17.6) for exercise (n=132); 23.7 (22.9) usual care (n=138); adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval 3.17 to 12.44; P=0.001). Secondary outcomes favoured exercise over usual care, with lower pain intensity at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on numerical rating scale -0.68, -1.23 to -0.12; P=0.02) and fewer arm disability symptoms at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast+4 (FACT-B+4) -2.02, -3.11 to -0.93; P=0.001). No increase in complications, lymphoedema, or adverse events was noted in participants allocated to exercise. Exercise accrued lower costs per patient (on average -£387 (€457; $533) (95% confidence interval -£2491 to £1718; 2015 pricing) and was cost effective compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: The PROSPER exercise programme was clinically effective and cost effective and reduced upper limb disability one year after breast cancer treatment in patients at risk of treatment related postoperative complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN35358984.

A low-cost easily implementable physiotherapy intervention clinically improves gait implying better adaptation to lower limb prosthesis: a randomized clinical trial.

Lower limb amputation highly impacts the lives of individuals. The inability to walk due to difficulties in adapting to wearing prosthesis can potentially result in physical degeneration and comorbidity in this population. In this randomized clinical trial study, we investigated if a low-cost and easily implementable physiotherapy intervention was effective in improving gait performance and adaptation to lower limb prosthesis in individuals with an amputation. A total of 26 individuals participated in the study, 16 with lower limb amputation and 10 without amputation. Participants with amputation were further divided in intervention and control groups. The intervention group underwent a rehabilitation protocol aimed at strengthening muscles and improving prosthesis adaptation. Muscle strengthening targeted the hip segment, prioritizing the abdominal muscles, hip flexors, extensors, adductors and abductors, followed by cicatricial mobilization and weight-bearing on the stump for desensitization. Assessment and measures were performed across the kinetic and kinematic parameters of gait. In the comparison between pre-and post-intervention, a significant increase in gait speed (0.68-2.98, 95% CI, 1.83, effect size ES) and cadence (0.56-2.69, 95% CI, 1.63, ES) was found between groups and time points. Step (0.73-3.11, 95% CI, 1.92, ES) and stride length (0.62-2.84, 95% CI, 1.73) increased between pre- and post-intervention, while in the control group both variables remained smaller. The intervention group decreased stance phase as a percentage of gait cycle between pre- and post-intervention (- 1.33-0.62, 95% CI, - 36, ES), while it increased in the control group. Improvement in a combination of important gait parameters indicates that the intervention protocol promoted the adaptation to prosthesis and the functional independence of individuals with lower limb amputation. It is recommended that the participants continue receiving follow-up assessments and rehabilitation interventions.

Post-stroke gait training practices in a low resource setting: a cross-sectional survey among Indian physiotherapists.

BACKGROUND: Independent mobility is the most important determinant of quality of life after stroke and it is vital that training aimed at restoration of gait is based on contemporary evidence. Despite several practice guidelines for gait rehabilitation after stroke existing globally, their feasibility of application in low-resource settings is often questionable. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current practices in gait training among Indian physiotherapists involved in the rehabilitation of stroke survivors. METHODS: A questionnaire on the various aspects of gait training was developed and the content was validated by experts. The survey was made available online and distributed among Indian physiotherapists working in the field of stroke rehabilitation, using snowball sampling. Frequency distribution was used to summarize responses to each component of the questionnaire. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 250 practicing physiotherapists. The majority of the respondents (55%) reported that they initiate gait training within seven days after stroke. Gait training sessions ranged from 15-30 minutes (55%), once every day (44%), and the majority (89%) reported use of subjective outcome measures to evaluate gait. Although most respondents agreed on the use of assistive aids, 24% indicated that their use may deter gait, rather than improve it. Nearly 86% of the respondents reported that they do not follow standard guidelines pertaining to gait rehabilitation for stroke survivors. CONCLUSION: The findings of the study point toward a lack of evidence-based practice among Indian physiotherapists while training gait after stroke. This implied the urgent need for development and implementation of country specific guidelines for stroke rehabilitation.

Effects of Home-Based Physical Exercise on Days at Home, Health Care Utilization, and Functional Independence Among Patients With Hip Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a physical exercise program on days lived at home, the use and costs of health care and social services, mortality, and functional independence among patients with hip fractures. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with a parallel 2-group design consisting of a 12-month intervention and 12-month registry follow-up. SETTING: Home-based intervention. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥60 years (N=121) with operated hip fracture and who were living at home were randomized into physical exercise (n=61) and usual care (n=60) groups. INTERVENTIONS: Supervised physical exercise twice a week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of days lived at home over 24 months. Secondary outcomes were the use and costs of health care and social services, mortality over 24 months, and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) over 12 months. RESULTS: Over 24 months, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of days lived at home (incidence rate ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.14) or mortality (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.42-2.43). The mean total costs of health care and social services did not differ between the groups. The costs per person-year were 1.26-fold (95% CI, 0.87-1.86) greater in the physical exercise group than in the usual care group over 12 months and 1.08-fold (95% CI, 0.77-1.70) over 24 months. The mean difference between the change in FIM of the groups over 12 months was 4.5 points (95% CI, 0.5-8.5; P=.029) in favor of the physical exercise group. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term home-based physical exercise had no effect on the number of days lived at home over 24 months among patients with hip fractures. The intervention was cost neutral over these 24 months. The FIM scores improved in both groups over 12 months, but the improvement was significantly greater in the physical exercise group than in the usual care group.

Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN' (REGAIN): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine which of two interventions: 1) an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme (REGAIN); or 2) a single online session of advice (best-practice usual care); is the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge. TRIAL DESIGN: Multi-centre, 2-arm (1:1 ratio) parallel group, randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation and health economic evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge Inclusion criteria: 1) Adults ≥18 years; 2) ≥ 3 months after any hospital discharge related to COVID-19 infection, regardless of need for critical care or ventilatory support; 3) substantial (as defined by the participant) COVID-19 related physical and/or mental health problems; 4) access to, and able/supported to use email and internet audio/video; 4) able to provide informed consent; 5) able to understand spoken and written English, Bengali, Gujarati, Urdu, Punjabi or Mandarin, themselves or supported by family/friends. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) exercise contraindicated; 2) severe mental health problems preventing engagement; 3) previous randomisation in the present study; 4) already engaged in, or planning to engage in an alternative NHS rehabilitation programme in the next 12 weeks; 5) a member of the same household previously randomised in the present study. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention 1: The Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) programme: an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme. Intervention 2: A thirty-minute, on-line, one-to-one consultation with a REGAIN practitioner (best-practice usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - PROMIS® 29+2 Profile v2.1 (PROPr) - measured at three months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include dyspnoea, cognitive function, health utility, physical activity participation, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity, depressive and anxiety symptoms, work status, health and social care resource use, death - measured at three, six and 12 months post-randomisation. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be randomised to best practice usual care or the REGAIN programme on a 1:1.03 basis using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, performed by minimisation and stratified by age, level of hospital care, and case level mental health symptomatology. Once consent and baseline questionnaires have been completed by the participant online at home, randomisation will be performed automatically by a bespoke web-based system. BLINDING (MASKING): To ensure allocation concealment from both participant and REGAIN practitioner at baseline, randomisation will be performed only after the baseline questionnaires have been completed online at home by the participant. After randomisation has been performed, participants and REGAIN practitioners cannot be blind to group allocation. Follow-up outcome assessments will be completed by participants online at home. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 535 participants will be randomised: 263 to the best-practice usual care arm, and 272 participants to the REGAIN programme arm. TRIAL STATUS: Current protocol: Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) Recruitment will begin in December 2020 and is anticipated to complete by September 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN:11466448 , 23rd November 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interests of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines.

The cost-effectiveness of different approaches to exercise and corticosteroid injection for subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether physiotherapist-led exercise intervention and US-guided subacromial CS injection is cost-effective when compared with standard advice and exercise leaflet and unguided injection in patients with subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome. METHODS: An incremental cost-utility analysis using patient responses to the five-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was undertaken from a healthcare perspective alongside a 2 × 2 factorial randomized trial with 256 participants over a 12-month follow-up period. Uncertainty was explored through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The cost-utility analysis indicated that physiotherapist-led exercise was associated with an incremental cost of £155.99 (95% CI 69.02, 241.93) and 0.031 (95% CI -0.01, 0.07) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5031 per QALY gained and an 85% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with the advice and exercise leaflet. US-guided injection was associated with an incremental cost of £15.89 (95% CI -59.36, 109.86) and 0.024 (95% CI -0.02, 0.07) additional QALYs, an ICER of £662 per QALY gained and a 83% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with unguided injection. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapist-led exercise was cost-effective compared with the advice and exercise leaflet, and US-guided injection was cost-effective when compared with unguided injection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, http://www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN42399123.

Are education, exercise and diet interventions a cost-effective treatment to manage hip and knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify research gaps and inform implementation we systematically reviewed the literature evaluating cost-effectiveness of recommended treatments (education, exercise and diet) for the management of hip and/or knee OA. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database, and EconLit from inception to November 2019 for trial-based economic evaluations investigating hip and/or knee OA core treatments. Two investigators screened relevant publications, extracted data and synthesized results. Risk of bias was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. RESULTS: Two cost-minimization, five cost-effectiveness and 16 cost-utility analyses evaluated core treatments in six health systems. Exercise therapy with and without education or diet was cost-effective or cost-saving compared to education or physician-delivered usual care at conventional willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds in 15 out of 16 publications. Exercise interventions were cost-effective compared to physiotherapist-delivered usual care in three studies at conventional WTP thresholds. Education interventions were not cost-effective compared to usual care or placebo at conventional WTP thresholds in three out of four publications. CONCLUSIONS: Structured core treatment programs were clinically effective and cost-effective, compared to physician-delivered usual care, in five health care systems. Providing education about core treatments was not consistently cost-effective. Implementing structured core treatment programs into funded clinical pathways would likely be an efficient use of health system resources and enhance physician-delivered usual primary care.