Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in Brazil: primary prevention analysis in the public sector

Cost-utility analysis of an implantable cardioverterdefibrillator for the treatment of patients with ischemic or non-ischemic New York Heart Association class II or III heart failure in Colombia

Introduction: The use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator reduces the probability of sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure.Objective: To determine the cost-utility relationship of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator compared to optimal pharmacological therapy for patients with ischemic or non-ischemic New York Heart Association class II or III (NYHA II-III) heart failure in Colombia.Materials and methods: We developed a Markov model including costs, effectiveness, and quality of life from the perspective of the Colombian health system. For the baseline case, we adopted a time horizon of 10 years and discount rates of 3% for costs and 3.5% for benefits.The transition probabilities were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. The outcome used was the quality-adjusted life years. We calculated the costs by consulting with the manufacturers of the device offered in the Colombian market and using national-level pricing manuals. We conducted probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.Results: In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was USD$ 13,187 per quality-adjusted life year gained. For a willingness-to-pay equivalent to three times the gross domestic product per capita as a reference (USD$ 19,139 in 2017), the device would be a cost-effective strategy for the Colombian health system. However, the result may change according to the time horizon, the probability of death, and the price of the device.Conclusions: The use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for preventing sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure would be a cost-effective strategy for Colombia. The results should be examined considering the uncertainty.

Implantable cardiac defibrillators for people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention in people with an ischaemic cardiomyopathy improves survival rate. The evidence supporting this intervention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy is not as definitive, with the recently published DANISH trial finding no improvement in survival rate. A systematic review of all eligible studies was needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of using ICDs for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of using compared to not using ICD for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy receiving optimal medical therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science Core Collection on 10 October 2018. For ongoing or unpublished clinical trials, we searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the ISRCTN registry. To identify economic evaluation studies, we conducted a separate search to 31 March 2015 of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and from March 2015 to October 2018 on MEDLINE and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials involving adults with chronic non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy due to a left ventricular systolic dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 35% or less (New York Heart Association (NYHA) type I-IV). Participants in the intervention arm should have received ICD in addition to optimal medical therapy, while those in the control arm received optimal medical therapy alone. We included studies with cardiac resynchronisation therapy when it was appropriately balanced in the experimental and control groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, sudden cardiac death, and adverse events associated with the intervention. The secondary outcomes were non-cardiovascular death, health-related quality of life, hospitalisation for heart failure, first ICD-related hospitalisation, and cost. We abstracted the log (hazard ratio) and its variance from trial reports for time-to-event survival data. We extracted the raw data necessary to calculate the risk ratio. We summarised data on quality of life and cost-effectiveness narratively. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible randomised trials with a total of 3128 participants. The use of ICD plus optimal medical therapy versus optimal medical therapy alone decreases the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92; participants = 3128; studies = 6; high-certainty evidence). An average of 24 patients need to be treated with ICD to prevent one additional death from any cause (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 24). Individuals younger than 65 derive more benefit than individuals older than 65 (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91; participants = 348; studies = 1) (NNTB = 10). When added to medical therapy, ICDs probably decrease cardiovascular mortality compared to not adding them (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.21; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was also found to decrease sudden cardiac deaths (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.70; participants = 1677; studies = 3; high-certainty evidence). An average of 25 patients need to be treated with an ICD to prevent one additional sudden cardiac death (NNTB = 25). We found that ICDs probably increase adverse events (possibility of both plausible harm and benefit), but likely have little or no effect on non-cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.68; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Finally, using ICD therapy probably has little or no effect on quality of life, however shocks from the device cause a deterioration in quality of life. No study reported the outcome of first ICD-related hospitalisations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of ICD in addition to medical therapy in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy decreases all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac deaths and probably decreases mortality from cardiovascular causes compared to medical therapy alone. Their use probably increases the risk for adverse events. However, these devices come at a high cost, and shocks from ICDs cause a deterioration in quality of life.

Primary and secondary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of economic evaluations

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of deaths globally, with greatest premature mortality in the low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Many of these countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, have significant budget constraints. The need for current evidence on which interventions offer good value for money to stem this CVD epidemic motivates this study.

Methods

In this systematic review, we included studies reporting full economic evaluations of individual and population-based interventions (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic), for primary and secondary prevention of CVD among adults in LMIC. Several medical (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science) and economic (EconLit, NHS EED) databases and grey literature were searched. Screening of studies and data extraction was done independently by two reviewers. Drummond’s checklist and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality rating scale were used in the quality appraisal for all studies used to inform this evidence synthesis.

Results

From a pool of 4059 records, 94 full texts were read and 50 studies, which met our inclusion criteria, were retained for our narrative synthesis. Most of the studies were from middle-income countries and predominantly of high quality. The majority were modelled evaluations, and there was significant heterogeneity in methods. Primary prevention studies dominated secondary prevention. Most of the economic evaluations were performed for pharmacological interventions focusing on blood pressure, cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet aggregants. The greatest majority were cost-effective. Compared to individual-based interventions, population-based interventions were few and mostly targeted reduction in sodium intake and tobacco control strategies. These were very cost-effective with many being cost-saving.

Conclusions

This evidence synthesis provides a contemporary update on interventions that offer good value for money in LMICs. Population-based interventions especially those targeting reduction in salt intake and tobacco control are very cost-effective in LMICs with potential to generate economic gains that can be reinvested to improve health and/or other sectors. While this evidence is relevant for policy across these regions, decision makers should additionally take into account other multi-sectoral perspectives, including considerations in budget impact, fairness, affordability and implementation while setting priorities for resource allocation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-018-0108-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Predictors of serious arrhythmic events in patients with nonischemic heart failure

PURPOSE

Risk stratification of serious arrhythmic events in patients with nonischemic heart failure (HF), beyond estimates of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), remains an important clinical challenge. This study aims to determine the clinical value of different noninvasive and invasive tests as predictors of serious arrhythmic events in patients with nonischemic HF.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted including 106 nonischemic HF patients who underwent a comprehensive clinical and laboratory evaluation including two-dimensional echocardiography, 24-h Holter monitoring, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX), and an invasive electrophysiological study. The study's primary end-point was either syncope, appropriate therapy by implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, or sudden cardiac death.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 704 ± 320 days, the primary end-point occurred in 15 patients (14.2%). In multivariable analysis, LV end-diastolic diameter >73 mm (hazard ratio [HR] 3.7; p = 0.016), exercise periodic breathing (EPB) on CPX (HR 2.88; p = 0.045), and non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) ≥10 beats (HR 8.2; p < 0.01) remained independently associated with serious arrhythmic events. The positive predictive value of the presence of two of these predictors ranged from 44 to 100%. The absence of all three factors (n = 65, 61% of the sample) identified a subset of patients with low risk of future arrhythmic events, with a negative predictive value of 96.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort study of nonischemic HF patients, LV dimension, EPB, and NSVT ≥10 beats were independent predictors of serious arrhythmic events. The presence or absence of these characteristics identified sub-groups of high and low risk of serious arrhythmic events, respectively.

Economic evaluations of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review

The aim of this paper was to review the cost-effectiveness studies of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). A systematic review of the literature published in English or Spanish was performed by electronically searching MEDLINE and MEDLINE in process, EMBASE, NHS-EED, and EconLit. Some keywords were implantable cardioverter defibrillator, heart failure, heart arrest, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, syncope, sudden death. Selection criteria were the following: (1) full economic evaluations published after 1995, model-based studies or alongside clinical trials (2) that explored the cost-effectiveness of ICD with or without associated treatment compared with placebo or best medical treatment, (3) in adult patients for primary or secondary prevention of SCD because of ventricular arrhythmias. Studies that fulfilled these criteria were reviewed and data were extracted by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed and a narrative synthesis was prepared. In total, 24 studies were included: seven studies on secondary prevention and 18 studies on primary prevention. Seven studies were performed in Europe. For secondary prevention, the results showed that the ICD is considered cost-effective in patients with more risk. For primary prevention, the cost-effectiveness of ICD has been widely studied, but uncertainty about its cost-effectiveness remains. The cost-effectiveness ratios vary between studies depending on the patient characteristics, methodology, perspective, and national settings. Among the European studies, the conclusions are varied, where the ICD is considered cost-effective or not dependent on the study.

A Comparative Survey of Pacemaker Implantation in Trinidad and Tobago in 2005 and 2009

OBJECTIVE

The indications for permanent pacemaker implantations in Trinidad have expanded from initially symptomatic bradycardia to now include complex devices. A retrospective review of the available data was conducted to better understand the evolving trends in device implantation in Trinidad and Tobago.

METHODS

Data were collated from the two major implanting teams in Trinidad for the years 2005 and 2009. The two implanting centres were the Advanced Cardiovascular Institute (ACI) at Westshore Medical Centre and the Catheterization Laboratory of the Eric Williams Medical Sciences Complex (EWMSC). Data were based on retrospective collation using the implantation records.

RESULTS

The implantation rate for new devices increased from 39 per million to 103 per million population. The most common indications for new device implants in 2009 were high degree atrioventricular (AV) block (53%) and sick sinus syndrome (22%) with the notable appearance of congestive cardiomyopathy (13%) which was not present in the earlier cohort. Of particular note, 23 high-end devices were implanted in 2009. These were five cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT-P) devices, 14 automatic implantable cardio-defibrillator (AICD) devices and four combined cardiac-resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) devices versus none in 2005.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, over the period 2005 to 2009, a substantial increase in device implantation rates has occurred which now include high-end, complex devices. Absolute rates, however, remain far below that of developed countries, indicating that the true need remains underserved. Furthermore, adjustment for gross domestic product suggests that the relatively buoyant economy of Trinidad and Tobago is capable of servicing a greater proportion of this need than is currently met.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators for the treatment of arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy for the treatment of heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

This assessment updates and expands on two previous technology assessments that evaluated implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for arrhythmias and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) for heart failure (HF).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICDs in addition to optimal pharmacological therapy (OPT) for people at increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) as a result of ventricular arrhythmias despite receiving OPT; to assess CRT with or without a defibrillator (CRT-D or CRT-P) in addition to OPT for people with HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and cardiac dyssynchrony despite receiving OPT; and to assess CRT-D in addition to OPT for people with both conditions.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic resources including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2012. Additional studies were sought from reference lists, clinical experts and manufacturers' submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

REVIEW METHODS

Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Data were synthesised through narrative review and meta-analyses. For the three populations above, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing (1) ICD with standard therapy, (2) CRT-P or CRT-D with each other or with OPT and (3) CRT-D with OPT, CRT-P or ICD were eligible. Outcomes included mortality, adverse events and quality of life. A previously developed Markov model was adapted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of OPT, ICDs, CRT-P and CRT-D in the three populations by simulating disease progression calculated at 4-weekly cycles over a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

A total of 4556 references were identified, of which 26 RCTs were included in the review: 13 compared ICD with medical therapy, four compared CRT-P/CRT-D with OPT and nine compared CRT-D with ICD. ICDs reduced all-cause mortality in people at increased risk of SCD, defined in trials as those with previous ventricular arrhythmias/cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction (MI) > 3 weeks previously, non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (depending on data included) or ischaemic/non-ischaemic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%. There was no benefit in people scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft. A reduction in SCD but not all-cause mortality was found in people with recent MI. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from £14,231 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) to £29,756 per QALY for the scenarios modelled. CRT-P and CRT-D reduced mortality and HF hospitalisations, and improved other outcomes, in people with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony when compared with OPT. The rate of SCD was lower with CRT-D than with CRT-P but other outcomes were similar. CRT-P and CRT-D compared with OPT produced ICERs of £27,584 per QALY and £27,899 per QALY respectively. The ICER for CRT-D compared with CRT-P was £28,420 per QALY. In people with both conditions, CRT-D reduced the risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalisation, and improved other outcomes, compared with ICDs. Complications were more common with CRT-D. Initial management with OPT alone was most cost-effective (ICER £2824 per QALY compared with ICD) when health-related quality of life was kept constant over time. Costs and QALYs for CRT-D and CRT-P were similar. The ICER for CRT-D compared with ICD was £27,195 per QALY and that for CRT-D compared with OPT was £35,193 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations of the model include the structural assumptions made about disease progression and treatment provision, the extrapolation of trial survival estimates over time and the assumptions made around parameter values when evidence was not available for specific patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In people at risk of SCD as a result of ventricular arrhythmias and in those with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony, the interventions modelled produced ICERs of < £30,000 per QALY gained. In people with both conditions, the ICER for CRT-D compared with ICD, but not CRT-D compared with OPT, was < £30,000 per QALY, and the costs and QALYs for CRT-D and CRT-P were similar. A RCT comparing CRT-D and CRT-P in people with HF as a result of LVSD and cardiac dyssynchrony is required, for both those with and those without an ICD indication. A RCT is also needed into the benefits of ICD in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy in the absence of dyssynchrony.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO number CRD42012002062.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

An approach to prioritization of medical devices in low-income countries: an example based on the Republic of South Sudan

Background

Efficient and evidence-based medical device and equipment prioritization is of particular importance in low-income countries due to constraints in financing capacity, physical infrastructure and human resource capabilities.

Methods

This paper outlines a medical device prioritization method developed in first instance for the Republic of South Sudan. The simple algorithm offered here is a starting point for procurement and selection of medical devices and can be regarded as a screening test for those that require more labour intensive health economic modelling.

Conclusions

A heuristic method, such as the one presented here, is appropriate for reaching many medical device prioritization decisions in low-income settings. Further investment and purchasing decisions that cannot be reached so simply require more complex health economic modelling approaches.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12962-014-0027-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The cost effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a systematic review of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the most common cause of death in developed countries, with more than 3 million people dying yearly. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are considered to be an effective treatment in the primary and secondary prevention of SCD; however, their cost is considerable and this poses questions regarding whether they are worth the investment relative to less expensive pharmacotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to investigate existing evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of ICD therapy and to identify the key drivers of cost effectiveness, for the purpose of informing interested policy and decision makers.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review of the literature concerning the cost effectiveness of ICDs was undertaken. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane and Health Economic Evaluations Database were searched based on appropriate terms and their combinations. Economic evaluation studies that examined the cost effectiveness of ICDs were selected and 34 were included for evaluation.

RESULTS

Findings from the present analysis show that ICD therapy, in properly selected patients who are at high risk of sudden cardiac death, is associated with similar or better cost-effectiveness ratios compared with other well accepted conventional treatments. The cost effectiveness of ICDs is influenced by several factors, including ICD efficacy and safety, impact on patient quality of life, device original implantation cost, frequency and cost of battery replacement, patient demographics and risk profile and analysis time horizon.

CONCLUSION

ICDs may represent a cost-effective option relative to pharmacotherapy in appropriately selected patient groups. The cost-effectiveness ratios appear to be at acceptable and comparable levels to other established treatments in cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular diseases. However, cost effectiveness is highly related to several factors and hence economic efficiency is highly dependent on conditions that need to be fulfilled for each individual case in medical practice. The aforementioned factors and technological advances imply that to ensure cost-effective use of ICD therapy, continuous research is needed.

Cost-effectiveness of heart failure therapies

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Management of HF involves accurate diagnosis and implementation of evidence-based treatment strategies. Costs related to the care of patients with HF have increased substantially over the past 2 decades, partly owing to new medications and diagnostic tests, increased rates of hospitalization, implantation of costly novel devices and, as the disease progresses, consideration for heart transplantation, mechanical circulatory support, and end-of-life care. Not surprisingly, HF places a huge burden on health-care systems, and widespread implementation of all potentially beneficial therapies for HF could prove unrealistic for many, if not all, nations. Cost-effectiveness analyses can help to quantify the relationship between clinical outcomes and the economic implications of available therapies. This Review is a critical overview of cost-effectiveness studies on key areas of HF management, involving pharmacological and nonpharmacological clinical therapies, including device-based and surgical therapeutic strategies.

Decision-analytic models to simulate health outcomes and costs in heart failure: a systematic review

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a critical public health issue with increasing effect on the healthcare budgets of developed countries. Various decision-analytic modelling approaches exist to estimate the cost effectiveness of health technologies for CHF. We sought to systematically identify these models and describe their structures. We performed a systematic literature review in MEDLINE/PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry using a combination of search terms for CHF and decision-analytic models. The inclusion criterion required 'use of a mathematical model evaluating both costs and health consequences for CHF management strategies'. Studies that were only economic evaluations alongside a clinical trial or that were purely descriptive studies were excluded. We identified 34 modelling studies investigating different interventions including screening (n = 1), diagnostics (n = 1), pharmaceuticals (n = 15), devices (n = 13), disease management programmes (n = 3) and cardiac transplantation (n = 1) in CHF. The identified models primarily focused on middle-aged to elderly patients with stable but progressed heart failure with systolic left ventricular dysfunction. Modelling approaches varied substantially and included 27 Markov models, three discrete-event simulation models and four mathematical equation sets models; 19 studies reported QALYs. Three models were externally validated. In addition to a detailed description of study characteristics, the model structure and output, the manuscript also contains a synthesis and critical appraisal for each of the modelling approaches. Well designed decision models are available for the evaluation of different CHF health technologies. Most models depend on New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes or number of hospitalizations as proxy for disease severity and progression. As the diagnostics and biomarkers evolve, there is the hope for better intermediate endpoints for modelling disease progression as those that are currently in use all have limitations.

Cost-effectiveness of implantable defibrillators after myocardial infarction based on 8-year follow-up data (MADIT II)

OBJECTIVES

About 190,000 Germans experience a myocardial infarction each year. Of these, 25% may be eligible for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) due to low left ventricular ejection fraction. Given the high costs of implantation, the purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ICDs compared to conventional therapy in patients with an ejection fraction 30% or less after MI in Germany.

METHODS

The economic evaluation was performed from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance. To simulate costs and effectiveness over lifetime, a Markov model was constructed with seven health states. The model was based on 8-year follow-up data for ICD implantation after myocardial infarction (MADIT II), which was published recently.

RESULTS

The analysis shows that ICD implantation compared to conventional therapy in patients fulfilling MADIT-II criteria has a cost-effectiveness ratio of €44,736 per quality-adjusted life year gained. If every patient insured by the statutory health insurance and fulfilling the MADIT-II criteria would receive an ICD, the model suggests expenditures between €173 million and €1.7 billion per year.

CONCLUSIONS

ICD therapy cannot be considered clearly cost-effective when compared to many well-accepted interventions. If policy makers decide to reimburse ICDs in the MADIT-II population, they will need to either raise premiums or abandon coverage for other currently funded medical interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of supervised exercise therapy in heart failure patients

OBJECTIVE

Exercise therapy in heart failure (HF) patients is considered safe and has demonstrated modest reduction in hospitalization rates and death in recent trials. Previous cost-effectiveness analysis described favorable results considering long-term supervised exercise intervention and significant effectiveness of exercise therapy; however, these evidences are now no longer supported. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of supervised exercise therapy in HF patients under the perspective of the Brazilian Public Healthcare System.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of supervised exercise therapy compared to standard treatment in patients with New York Heart Association HF class II and III. Effectiveness was evaluated in quality-adjusted life years in a 10-year time horizon. We searched PUBMED for published clinical trials to estimate effectiveness, mortality, hospitalization, and utilities data. Treatment costs were obtained from published cohort updated to 2008 values. Exercise therapy intervention costs were obtained from a rehabilitation center. Model robustness was assessed through Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis. Cost were expressed as international dollars, applying the purchasing-power-parity conversion rate.

RESULTS

Exercise therapy showed small reduction in hospitalization and mortality at a low cost, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Int$26,462/quality-adjusted life year. Results were more sensitive to exercise therapy costs, standard treatment total costs, exercise therapy effectiveness, and medications costs. Considering a willingness-to-pay of Int$27,500, 55% of the trials fell below this value in the Monte Carlo simulation.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Brazilian scenario, exercise therapy shows reasonable cost-effectiveness ratio, despite current evidence of limited benefit of this intervention.