Cost–utility analysis of longstanding exercise therapy versus usual care in people with rheumatoid arthritis and severe functional limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of longstanding personalized exercise therapy compared with usual care in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and severe functional disability. METHOD: In this cost-utility analysis of a randomized controlled trial (n = 215), with 1 year follow-up, the study population comprised individuals with RA and reported severe difficulties in performing basic daily activities. Assessments were at baseline, 12, 26, and 52 weeks, with measurements of costs including medical and non-medical costs as recorded by patients and healthcare providers. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using the EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) and EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS). Costs and QALY differences were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The 1 year societal costs were non-significantly in favour of the usual care group, with a small difference of €180 [95% confidence interval (CI) €-4493 to €4852]. The QALYs were non-significantly in favour of the intervention group, by 0.02 according to the EQ-5D-5L (95% CI -0.05 to 0.09) and by 0.04 according to the EQ-VAS (95% CI 0.00 to 0.08). For a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50 000 per QALY, the intervention was the cost-effective strategy with 60% certainty. CONCLUSION: This economic evaluation showed no clear economic preference for either group, as the intervention costs were higher in the intervention group, but partly compensated by other cost savings and improved QALYs. Despite severe RA, patients had better clinical outcomes compared with usual care, suggesting no economic reasons to refrain from exercise therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register NL8235, included in the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) (https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NL8235).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".