G. Furze et al. Table 2 Secondary outcomes. Physiological measures at 6 months Systolic blood pressure* Total cholesterol* Body mass index* Waist/hip ratio* Questionnaire measures at 3 and 6 months SAQ Physical limitations 3 months* SAQ physical limitations 6 months* SAQ anginal frequency/perception 3 months* SAQ anginal frequency/perception 6 months* SAQ treatment satisfaction 3 months* SAQ treatment satisfaction 6 months* HADS anxiety 3 months* HADs anxiety 6 months* HADS depression 3 months* HADs depression 6 months* Angina beliefs 3 months* Angina beliefs 6 months* Categorical variables smoking (veriﬁed by CO Monitor) 6 months Exercise 5 · 30 minutes per week 3 months 6 months LAMP (n = 57), Mean (SE) 136Æ99 (2Æ30) 4Æ27 (0Æ14) 28Æ05 (0Æ68) 0Æ95 (0Æ01) 83Æ08 (2Æ28) 81Æ30 (2Æ32) 71Æ52 (3Æ16) 74Æ70 (3Æ24) 85Æ95 (2Æ86) 89Æ48 (2Æ42) 5Æ13 (0Æ39) 6Æ27 (0Æ46) 3Æ40 (0Æ28) 3Æ11 (0Æ39) 4Æ28 (0Æ26) 4Æ17 (0Æ22) LAMP, n (%) 12 (22Æ2) 30 (53Æ6) 22 (38Æ6) Control (n = 58), Mean (SE) Difference, Mean (95% CI) 137Æ95 (2Æ22) 4Æ15 (0Æ13) 29Æ03 (0Æ66) 0Æ98 (0Æ01) 78Æ89 (2Æ25) 81Æ23 (2Æ14) 63Æ20 (3Æ13) 70Æ62 (3Æ06) 82Æ13 (2Æ86) 86Æ13 (2Æ24) 7Æ07 (0Æ38) 7Æ70 (0Æ44) 4Æ05 (0Æ28) 4Æ21 (0Æ38) 5Æ15 (0Æ25) 5Æ63 (0Æ22) Control, n (%) 6 (10Æ3) 18 (32Æ1) 23 (36Æ5) 0Æ96 ( 7Æ30, 5Æ37) 0Æ11 ( 0Æ28, 0Æ50) 0Æ98 ( 2Æ86, 0Æ89) 0Æ03 ( 0Æ05. 0Æ00) 4Æ19 ( 2Æ16, 10Æ55) 0Æ07 ( 6Æ18, 6Æ33) 8Æ31 ( 0Æ52, 17Æ14) 4Æ08 ( 4Æ76, 12Æ93) 3Æ81 ( 4Æ19, 11Æ82) 3Æ35 ( 3Æ20, 9Æ89) 1Æ94 ( 3Æ03, 0Æ84) 1Æ43 ( 2Æ69, 0Æ17) 0Æ65 ( 1Æ45, 0Æ14) 1Æ10 ( 2Æ19, 0Æ02) 0Æ86 ( 1Æ58, 0Æ15) 1Æ47 ( 2Æ09, 0Æ85) Odds ratio (95% CI) 1Æ31 (0Æ11, 15Æ32) 3Æ14 (1Æ30, 7Æ58) 1Æ12 (0Æ50, 2Æ49) P 0Æ76 0Æ57 0Æ30 0Æ05 0Æ19 0Æ98 0Æ07 0Æ36 0Æ35 0Æ31 0Æ001 0Æ03 0Æ11 0Æ05 0Æ02 <0Æ001 P 0Æ83 0Æ01 0Æ78 All results adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable. SAQ = Seattle Angina Questionnaire, higher scores = better functioning; HADS = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scales, higher scor- es = worse functioning; Angina beliefs, higher scores = more misconceptions. *Estimates obtained from linear regression model. Estimates obtained from logistic regression model. was summed by the cost of intervention or the cost of control treatment. In this regression model, the average cost per pa- tient in the control group was £1259Æ9 (CI: 764Æ5–1755Æ4) whilst in the intervention group it was £1496Æ0 (CI: 901Æ0– 2091Æ0). The difference between the two groups was not signiﬁcantly different from zero (£236Æ0, CI: 825Æ5– 1001Æ6). Assessment of cost utility There was a statistically signiﬁcant difference in average QALY per patient of 0Æ045 (CI: 0Æ005–0Æ085). It was estimated from the model that, after adjusting for covariates, the average incremental net beneﬁt of LAMP over control was positive (£354Æ60) and therefore LAMP can be considered cost-effective. However, the coefﬁcient was not 2274 signiﬁcantly different from zero (P = 0Æ408), representing some level of uncertainty around this net beneﬁt estimate. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (Figure 3) shows the probabilities representing the chance that LAMP is more cost-effective compared to control for a range of willingness to pay (k). As seen in ﬁgure 3, the probability increased with the increasing value of k. For k = £20,000 the probability of LAMP being cost-effective is 80%. For k = £30,000 the probability increased to 90%. Discussion Limitations of the study The major limitation of the study is that it did not recruit enough participants to meet the sample size requirements, 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd