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

• Main Authors: Henriëtte E van der Horst, Vincent A van Vugt, Otto R Maarsingh, Aureliano P Finch
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMJ Publishing Group 2020-10-01
• Series: BMJ Open
• Online Access: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/10/e035583.full

Objectives To 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.Design Economic evaluation alongside a three-armed, individually randomised controlled trial.Setting 59 Dutch general practices.Participants 322 adults, aged 50 years and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome.Interventions Stand-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 measures Societal costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), Vertigo Symptom Scale—Short Form (VSS-SF), clinically relevant response (≥3 points VSS-SF improvement).Results Mean 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.Conclusion Stand-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 number The Netherlands Trial Register NTR5712.