Cost-effectiveness of internet-based vestibular rehabilitation with and without physiotherapy support for adults aged 50 and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome in general practice

• Published in: BMJ open Vol. 10; no. 10; p. e035583
• Main Authors: van Vugt, Vincent A, Bosmans, Judith E, Finch, Aureliano P, van der Wouden, Johannes C, van der Horst, Henriëtte E, Maarsingh, Otto R
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BMJ Publishing Group LTD 15.10.2020; BMJ Publishing Group
• Series: Original research
• Subjects: Absenteeism; Adult; Aged; Cost analysis; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Efficiency; General Practice; General practice / Family practice; Humans; Internet; Internet access; Intervention; Middle Aged; Netherlands; Physical therapy; Physical Therapy Modalities; Productivity; Quality of life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Questionnaires; Rehabilitation; Treatment Outcome; Vertigo; Netherlands; primary care; rehabilitation medicine; otolaryngology; neurology; health economics
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035583

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of stand-alone and blended internet-based vestibular rehabilitation (VR) in comparison with usual care (UC) for chronic vestibular syndromes in general practice.DesignEconomic evaluation alongside a three-armed, individually randomised controlled trial.Setting59 Dutch general practices.Participants322 adults, aged 50 years and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome.InterventionsStand-alone VR consisted of a 6-week, internet-based intervention with weekly online sessions and daily exercises. In blended VR, this intervention was supplemented with face-to-face physiotherapy support. UC group participants received usual general practice care without restrictions.Main outcome measuresSocietal costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), Vertigo Symptom Scale—Short Form (VSS-SF), clinically relevant response (≥3 points VSS-SF improvement).ResultsMean societal costs in both the stand-alone and blended VR groups were statistically non-significantly higher than in the UC group (mean difference (MD) €504, 95% CI −1082 to 2268; and €916, 95% CI −663 to 2596). Both stand-alone and blended VR groups reported non-significantly more QALYs than the UC group (MD 0.02, 95% CI −0.00 to 0.04; and 0.01, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.03), and significantly better VSS-SF Scores (MD 3.8 points, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.0; and 3.3 points, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.2). For stand-alone VR compared with UC, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.95 at a willingness-to-pay ratio of €24 161/QALY, €600/point improvement in VSS-SF and €8000/clinically relevant responder in VSS-SF. For blended VR versus UC, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.95 at a willingness-to-pay ratio of €123 335/QALY, €900/point improvement in VSS-SF and €24 000/clinically relevant responder in VSS-SF.ConclusionStand-alone and blended internet-based VR non-significantly increased QALYs and significantly reduced vestibular symptoms compared with UC, while costs in both groups were non-significantly higher. Stand-alone VR has the highest probability to be cost-effective compared with UC.Trial registration numberThe Netherlands Trial Register NTR5712.