• Cost-effectiveness of a physical activity and behaviour maintenance programme on functional mobility decline in older adults: an economic evaluation of the REACT (Retirement in Action) trial.

      Snowsill, Tristan M; Stathi, Afroditi; Green, Colin; Withall, Janet; Greaves, Colin J; Thompson, Janice L; Taylor, Gordon; Gray, Selena; Johansen-Berg, Heidi; Bilzon, James L J; et al. (Elsevier, 2022-03-16)
      Background: Mobility limitations in old age can greatly reduce quality of life, generate substantial health and social care costs, and increase mortality. Through the Retirement in Action (REACT) trial, we aimed to establish whether a community-based active ageing intervention could prevent decline in lower limb physical functioning in older adults already at increased risk of mobility limitation. Methods: In this pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, single-blind, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial, we recruited older adults (aged 65 years or older and who are not in full-time employment) with reduced lower limb physical functioning (Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB] score 4-9) from 35 primary care practices across three sites (Bristol and Bath; Birmingham; and Devon) in England. Participants were randomly assigned to receive brief advice (three healthy ageing education sessions) or a 12-month, group-based, multimodal physical activity (64 1-h exercise sessions) and behavioural maintenance (21 45-min sessions) programme delivered by charity and community or leisure centre staff in local communities. Randomisation was stratified by site and adopted a minimisation approach to balance groups by age, sex, and SPPB score, using a centralised, online, randomisation algorithm. Researchers involved in data collection and analysis were masked but participants were not because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was change in SPPB score at 24 months, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN45627165. Findings: Between June 20, 2016, and Oct 30, 2017, 777 participants (mean age 77·6 [SD 6·8] years; 66% female; mean SPPB score 7·37 [1·56]) were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=410) and control (n=367) groups. Primary outcome data at 24 months were provided by 628 (81%) participants (294 in the control group and 334 in the intervention group). At the 24-month follow-up, the SPPB score (adjusted for baseline SPPB score, age, sex, study site, and exercise group) was significantly greater in the intervention group (mean 8·08 [SD 2·87]) than in the control group (mean 7·59 [2·61]), with an adjusted mean difference of 0·49 (95% CI 0·06-0·92; p=0·014), which is just below our predefined clinically meaningful difference of 0·50. One adverse event was related to the intervention; the most common unrelated adverse events were heart conditions, strokes, and falls. Interpretation: For older adults at risk of mobility limitations, the REACT intervention showed that a 12-month physical activity and behavioural maintenance programme could help Background: Mobility limitations in older populations have a substantial impact on health outcomes, quality of life, and social care costs. The Retirement in Action (REACT) randomised controlled trial assessed a 12-month community-based group physical activity and behaviour maintenance intervention to help prevent decline in physical functioning in older adults at increased risk of mobility limitation. We aimed to do an economic evaluation of the REACT trial to investigate whether the intervention is cost-effective. Methods: In this health economic evaluation, we did cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of the REACT programme versus standard care on the basis of resource use, primary outcome, and health-related quality-of-life data measured in the REACT trial. We also developed a decision analytic Markov model that forecasts the mobility of recipients beyond the 24-month follow-up of the trial and translated this into future costs and potential benefit to health-related quality of life using the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Participants completed questionnaire booklets at baseline, and at 6, 12, and 24 months after randomisation, which included a resource use questionnaire and the EQ-5D-5L and 36-item short-form survey (SF-36) health-related quality-of-life instruments. The cost of delivering the intervention was estimated by identifying key resources, such as REACT session leader time, time of an individual to coordinate the programme, and venue hire. EQ-5D-5L and SF-36 responses were converted to preference-based utility values, which were used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 24-month trial follow-up using the area-under-the-curve method. We used generalised linear models to examine the effect of the REACT programme on costs and QALYs and adjust for baseline covariates. Costs and QALYs beyond 12 months were discounted at 3·5% per year. This is a pre-planned analysis of the REACT trial; the trial itself is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN45627165). Findings: The 12-month REACT programme was estimated to cost £622 per recipient to deliver. The most substantial cost components are the REACT session leader time (£309 per participant), venue hire (£109), and the REACT coordinator time (£80). The base-case analysis of the trial-based economic evaluation showed that reductions in health and social care usage due to the REACT programme could offset the REACT delivery costs (£3943 in the intervention group vs £4043 in the control group; difference: -£103 [95% CI -£695 to £489]) with a health benefit of 0·04 QALYs (0·009-0·071; 1·354 QALYs in the intervention group vs 1·314 QALYs in the control group) within the 24-month timeframe of the trial. Background: Mobility limitations in older populations have a substantial impact on health outcomes, quality of life, and social care costs. The Retirement in Action (REACT) randomised controlled trial assessed a 12-month community-based group physical activity and behaviour maintenance intervention to help prevent decline in physical functioning in older adults at increased risk of mobility limitation. We aimed to do an economic evaluation of the REACT trial to investigate whether the intervention is cost-effective. Methods: In this health economic evaluation, we did cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of the REACT programme versus standard care on the basis of resource use, primary outcome, and health-related quality-of-life data measured in the REACT trial. We also developed a decision analytic Markov model that forecasts the mobility of recipients beyond the 24-month follow-up of the trial and translated this into future costs and potential benefit to health-related quality of life using the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Participants completed questionnaire booklets at baseline, and at 6, 12, and 24 months after randomisation, which included a resource use questionnaire and the EQ-5D-5L and 36-item short-form survey (SF-36) health-related quality-of-life instruments. The cost of delivering the intervention was estimated by identifying key resources, such as REACT session leader time, time of an individual to coordinate the programme, and venue hire. EQ-5D-5L and SF-36 responses were converted to preference-based utility values, which were used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 24-month trial follow-up using the area-under-the-curve method. We used generalised linear models to examine the effect of the REACT programme on costs and QALYs and adjust for baseline covariates. Costs and QALYs beyond 12 months were discounted at 3·5% per year. This is a pre-planned analysis of the REACT trial; the trial itself is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN45627165). Findings: The 12-month REACT programme was estimated to cost £622 per recipient to deliver. The most substantial cost components are the REACT session leader time (£309 per participant), venue hire (£109), and the REACT coordinator time (£80). The base-case analysis of the trial-based economic evaluation showed that reductions in health and social care usage due to the REACT programme could offset the REACT delivery costs (£3943 in the intervention group vs £4043 in the control group; difference: -£103 [95% CI -£695 to £489]) with a health benefit of 0·04 QALYs (0·009-0·071; 1·354 QALYs in the intervention group vs 1·314 QALYs in the control group) within the 24-month timeframe of the trial. Interpretation: The REACT programme could be considered a cost-effective approach for improving the health-related quality of life of older adults at risk of mobility limitations.