Search

Background: Cost-effectiveness is important in the prioritisation between interventions in health care. Exercise is cost-effective compared to usual care during oncological treatment; however, the significance of exercise intensity to the cost-effectiveness is unclear. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the randomised controlled trial Phys-Can, a six-month exercise programme of high (HI) or low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment., Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, based on 189 participants with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer (HI: n  = 99 and LMI: n  = 90) from the Phys-Can RCT in Sweden. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective, and included cost of the exercise intervention, health care utilisation and productivity loss. Health outcomes were assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using EQ-5D-5L at baseline, post intervention and 12 months after the completion of the intervention., Results: At 12-month follow-up after the intervention, the total cost per participant did not differ significantly between HI (€27,314) and LMI exercise (€29,788). There was no significant difference in health outcome between the intensity groups. On average HI generated 1.190 QALYs and LMI 1.185 QALYs. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that HI was cost effective compared with LMI, but the uncertainty was large., Conclusions: We conclude that HI and LMI exercise have similar costs and effects during oncological treatment. Hence, based on cost-effectiveness, we suggest that decision makers and clinicians can consider implementing both HI and LMI exercise programmes and recommend either intensity to the patients with cancer during oncological treatment to facilitate improvement of health.

Background: Exercise during oncological treatment is beneficial to patient health and can counteract the side effects of treatment. Knowledge of the societal costs associated with an exercise intervention, however, is limited. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the long-term resource utilisation and societal costs of an exercise intervention conducted during (neo)adjuvant oncological treatment in a randomised control trial (RCT) versus usual care (UC), and to compare high-intensity (HI) versus low-to-moderate intensity (LMI) exercise in the RCT., Methods: We used data from the Physical Training and Cancer (Phys-Can) project. In the RCT, 577 participants were randomised to HI or to LMI of combined endurance and resistance training for 6 months, during oncological treatment. The project also included 89 participants with UC in a longitudinal observational study. We measured at baseline and after 18 months. Resource utilisation and costs of the exercise intervention, health care, and productivity loss were compared using analyses of covariance (RCT vs. UC) and t test (HI vs. LMI)., Results: Complete data were available for 619 participants (RCT HI: n  = 269, LMI: n  = 265, and UC: n  = 85). We found no difference in total societal costs between the exercise intervention groups in the RCT and UC. However, participants in the RCT had lower rates of disability pension days ( p < .001), corresponding costs ( p = .001), and pharmacy costs ( p = .018) than the UC group. Nor did we find differences in resource utilisation or costs between HI and LMI exercise int the RCT., Conclusion: Our study showed no difference in total societal costs between the comprehensive exercise intervention and UC or between the exercise intensities. This suggests that exercise, with its well-documented health benefits during oncological treatment, produces neither additional costs nor savings.