Search

Background: A cardio-oncology rehabilitation model among cancer survivors showed superior results comparing to a community-based exercise intervention. However, questions remain about its cost-effectiveness., Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) program when compared to usual care encompassing a community-based exercise training (CBET), among cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk., Methods: The CORE study was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial; 80 adult cancer survivors with previous exposure to cardiotoxic cancer treatment and/or with previous cardiovascular disease were assigned (1:1 ratio) to an 8-week CBCR or CBET, twice/week. Cost-effectiveness was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Outcomes included healthcare resource use and costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was computed from a societal perspective., Results: 75 patients completed the study (CBCR N=38; CBET N=37). The CBCR had significantly higher cost per patient (477.76 ± 39.08€) compared to CBET group (339.32 ± 53.88€), with a significant between-group difference 138.44€ (95% CI, 116.82 to 160.05€, p<0.01). A between-group difference by 0.100 points in QALYs was observed, favouring the CBCR (95% CI, -0.163 to -0.037, p=0.002). When CBCR was compared with CBET, the ICER was €1,383.24 per QALY gained; at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €5,000 per QALY, the probability of CBCR being cost-effective was 99.9% (95% CI, 99.4 to 100.0)., Conclusion: The CORE trial shows that a CBCR is a cost-effective intervention in the management of cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk, reinforcing the potential benefits of this multidisciplinary approach in supportive care of this specific subset of cancer patients., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Importance: Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity in cancer survivors, which makes strategies aimed at mitigating cardiovascular risk a subject of major contemporary importance., Objective: To assess whether a center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) framework compared with usual care encompassing community-based exercise training (CBET) is superior for cardiorespiratory fitness improvement and cardiovascular risk factor control among cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, single-center, randomized clinical trial (CORE trial) included adult cancer survivors who had exposure to cardiotoxic cancer treatment and/or previous cardiovascular disease. Enrollment took place from March 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. End points were assessed at baseline and after the 8-week intervention., Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 8 weeks of CBCR or CBET. The combined aerobic and resistance exercise sessions were performed twice a week., Main Outcomes and Measures: The powered primary efficacy measure was change in peak oxygen consumption (V̇o2) at 2 months. Secondary outcomes included handgrip maximal strength, functional performance, blood pressure (BP), body composition, body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), lipid profile, plasma biomarker levels, physical activity (PA) levels, psychological distress, quality of life (QOL), and health literacy., Results: A total of 75 participants completed the study (mean [SD] age, 53.6 [12.3] years; 58 [77.3%] female), with 38 in the CBCR group and 37 in the CBET group. Participants in CBCR achieved a greater mean (SD) increase in peak V̇o2 than those in CBET (2.1 [2.8] mL/kg/min vs 0.8 [2.5] mL/kg/min), with a between-group mean difference of 1.3 mL/kg/min (95% CI, 0.1-2.6 mL/kg/min; P = .03). Compared with the CBET group, the CBCR group also attained a greater mean (SD) reduction in systolic BP (-12.3 [11.8] mm Hg vs -1.9 [12.9] mm Hg; P < .001), diastolic BP (-5.0 [5.7] mm Hg vs -0.5 [7.0] mm Hg; P = .003), and BMI (-1.2 [0.9] vs 0.2 [0.7]; P < .001) and greater mean (SD) improvements in PA levels (1035.2 [735.7] metabolic equivalents [METs]/min/wk vs 34.1 [424.4] METs/min/wk; P < .001), QOL (14.0 [10.0] points vs 0.4 [12.9] points; P < .001), and health literacy scores (2.7 [1.6] points vs 0.1 [1.4] points; P < .001). Exercise adherence was significantly higher in the CBCR group than in the CBET group (mean [SD] sessions completed, 90.3% [11.8%] vs 68.4% [22.1%]; P < .001)., Conclusion and Relevance: The CORE trial showed that a cardio-oncology rehabilitation model among cancer survivors with high cardiovascular risk was associated with greater improvements in peak V̇o2 compared with usual care encompassing an exercise intervention in a community setting. The CBCR also showed superior results in exercise adherence, cardiovascular risk factor control, QOL, and health literacy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05132998.

Purpose: To assess safety, satisfaction, and overall adherence of a center-based cardiac rehabilitation (CBCR) program for cancer survivors at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, compared to community-based exercise training (CBET)., Methods: The CORE study was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial enrolling cancer survivors exposed to cardiotoxic cancer treatment and/or with previous CV disease. Participants were randomized to an 8-week CBCR program or CBET, twice a week. Overall feasibility (consent, retention, and completion rates), intervention adherence (percentage of exercise sessions attended), and safety were assessed. Adverse events (AEs) were registered, and participants' satisfaction was measured at the end of the study., Results: Eighty out of 116 potentially eligible individuals were included; consent rate was 72.4%, and 77 (96.2%) started the study (retention rate 100% in CBCR vs 92.5% in CBET); completion rate was 92.5%. Intervention adherence was higher in CBCR (90.3 ± 11.8% vs 68.4 ± 22.1%, p < 0.001). Exercise-related AEs were mainly related to musculoskeletal conditions in both groups (7 in CBCR vs 20 in CBET, p < 0.001), accounting for exercise prescription modification in 47 sessions (18 (3.3%) in CBCR vs 29 (7.2%) in CBET, p = 0.006), none motivating exercise discontinuation. No participants reported major CV events. Overall, the satisfaction with the different aspects of the programs (e.g., expectations, monitoring) was higher in the CBCR., Conclusion: This exploratory analysis of the CORE trial suggests that both exercise-based interventions are feasible and safe in this setting. The higher intervention adherence and patient satisfaction in CBCR suggest that this comprehensive approach could be of interest in this population., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Cancer survivors are challenging patients, as they often present increased cardiovascular risk. In this background, cardio-oncology rehabilitation frameworks for specific cancer patients have been proposed. However, optimal program designs, as well as their overall safety and efficacy in different subsets of patients, are not fully ascertained., Design: Single-center, pragmatic, prospective, randomized controlled trial performed in Portugal aiming to evaluate the impact of a center-based cardiac rehabilitation program, consisting of exercise training, nutritional counselling, psychosocial management and lifestyle behavior change, compared to community-based exercise training, in cancer survivors., Methods: Adult cancer survivors (N = 80) exposed to cardiotoxic cancer treatment and/or with previous cardiovascular disease will be randomized (1:1) to receive either an eight-week cardiac rehabilitation program or community-based exercise training. Primary endpoint is cardiorespiratory fitness; secondary endpoints are physical activity, psychosocial parameters, blood pressure, body composition, lipids and inflammatory parameters. Physical function, quality of life, fatigue, health literacy, and feasibility will be assessed; a cost-effectiveness evaluation will also be performed. Between-group differences at baseline and in the change from baseline to the end of the study will be tested with unpaired t-tests or Mann-Whitney U test. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be performed for within-group comparisons., Conclusion: This trial will address the overall impact of a contemporary cardiac rehabilitation program framework in cancer survivors, as compared to a community-based exercise training. Given the higher cardiovascular risk in several groups of cancer patients, our results could provide novel insights into optimized preventive strategies in this complex patient population., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aims: This prospective, randomized, controlled, multicentre study aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of exercise training in patients with pulmonary arterial (PAH) and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH)., Methods and Results: For the first time a specialized PAH/CTEPH rehabilitation programme was implemented in 11 centres across 10 European countries. Out of 129 enrolled patients, 116 patients (58 vs. 58 randomized into a training or usual care control group) on disease-targeted medication completed the study [85 female; mean age 53.6 ± 12.5 years; mean pulmonary arterial pressure 46.6 ± 15.1 mmHg; World Health Organization (WHO) functional class II 53%, III 46%; PAH n = 98; CTEPH n = 18]. Patients of the training group performed a standardized in-hospital rehabilitation with mean duration of 25 days [95% confidence interval (CI) 17-33 days], which was continued at home. The primary endpoint, change of 6-min walking distance, significantly improved by 34.1 ± 8.3 m in the training compared with the control group (95% CI, 18-51 m; P < 0.0001). Exercise training was feasible, safe, and well-tolerated. Secondary endpoints showed improvements in quality of life (short-form health survey 36 mental health 7.3 ± 2.5, P = 0.004), WHO-functional class (training vs. control: improvement 9:1, worsening 4:3; χ2P = 0.027) and peak oxygen consumption (0.9 ± 0.5 mL/min/kg, P = 0.048) compared with the control group., Conclusion: This is the first multicentre and so far the largest randomized, controlled study on feasibility, safety, and efficacy of exercise training as add-on to medical therapy in PAH and CTEPH. Within this study, a standardized specialized training programme with in-hospital start was successfully established in 10 European countries., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)