Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the Danish 'TeleCare North' cluster-randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a telehealthcare solution in addition to usual care compared with usual care. DESIGN:A 12-month cost-utility analysis conducted alongside a cluster-randomised trial. SETTING:Community-based setting in the geographical area of North Denmark Region in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS:26 municipality districts define randomisation clusters with 13 districts in each arm. 1225 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were enrolled, of which 578 patients were randomised to telehealthcare and 647 to usual care. INTERVENTIONS:In addition to usual care, patients in the intervention group received a set of telehealthcare equipment and were monitored by a municipality-based healthcare team. Patients in the control group received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years gained from baseline up to 12 months follow-up. RESULTS:From a healthcare and social sector perspective, the adjusted mean difference in total costs between telehealthcare and usual care was €728 (95% CI -754 to 2211) and the adjusted mean difference in quality-adjusted life-years gained was 0.0132 (95% CI -0.0083 to 0.0346). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €55?327 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Decision-makers should be willing to pay more than €55?000 to achieve a probability of cost-effectiveness >50%. This conclusion is robust to changes in the definition of hospital contacts and reduced intervention costs. Only in the most optimistic scenario combining the effects of all sensitivity analyses, does the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio fall below the UK thresholds values (€21?068 per quality-adjusted life-year). CONCLUSIONS:Telehealthcare is unlikely to be a cost-effective addition to usual care, if it is offered to all patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and if the willingness-to-pay threshold values from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence are applied. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01984840, 14 November 2013.

SUBMITTER: Witt Udsen F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5541337 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the Danish 'TeleCare North' cluster-randomised trial.

Witt Udsen Flemming F Lilholt Pernille Heyckendorff PH Hejlesen Ole O Ehlers Lars L

BMJ open 20170517 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a telehealthcare solution in addition to usual care compared with usual care.<h4>Design</h4>A 12-month cost-utility analysis conducted alongside a cluster-randomised trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Community-based setting in the geographical area of North Denmark Region in Denmark.<h4>Participants</h4>26 municipality districts define randomisation clusters with 13 districts in each arm. 1225 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease wer ...[more]

PMID: 28515193

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:Results from the Danish cluster-randomized trial of telehealthcare to 1,225 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the Danish Telecare North Trial, concluded that the telehealthcare solution was unlikely to be cost-effective, by applying international willingness-to-pay threshold values. The purpose of this article was to assess potential sources of variation across subgroups, which could explain overall cost-effectiveness results or be utilized in future economic studies in telehealthcare research. METHODS:First, the cost-structures and cost-effectiveness across COPD severities were analyzed. Second, five additional subgroup analyses were conducted, focusing on differences in cost-effectiveness across a set of comorbidities, age-groups, genders, resource patterns (resource use in the social care sector prior to randomization), and delivery sites. All subgroups were investigated post hoc. In analyzing cost-effectiveness, two separate linear mixed-effects models with treatment-by-covariate interactions were applied: one for quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain and one for total healthcare and social sector costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used for each subgroup result in order to quantify the uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS:The study concludes that, across the COPD severities, patients with severe COPD (GOLD 3 classification) are likely to be the most cost-effective group. This is primarily due to lower hospital-admission and primary-care costs. Telehealthcare for patients younger than 60 years is also more likely to be cost-effective than for older COPD patients. Overall, results indicate that existing resource patterns of patients and variations in delivery-site practices might have a strong influence on cost-effectiveness, possibly stronger than the included health or sociodemographic sources of heterogeneity. CONCLUSION:Future research should focus more on sources of heterogeneity found in the implementation context and the way telehealthcare is adopted (eg, by integrating formative evaluation into cost-effectiveness analyses). TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01984840.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of a structured education pulmonary rehabilitation programme (SEPRP) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) relative to usual practice in primary care. The programme consisted of group-based sessions delivered jointly by practice nurses and physiotherapists over 8 weeks.DesignCost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting32 general practices in Ireland.Participants350 adults with COPD, 69% of whom were moderately affected.InterventionsIntervention arm (n=178) received a 2 h group-based SEPRP session per week over 8 weeks delivered jointly by a practice nurse and physiotherapist at the practice surgery or nearby venue. The control arm (n=172) received the usual practice in primary care.Main outcome measuresIncremental costs, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) scores, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained estimated using the generic EQ5D instrument, and expected cost-effectiveness at 22 weeks trial follow-up.ResultsThe intervention was associated with an increase of €944 (95% CIs 489 to 1400) in mean healthcare cost and €261 (95% CIs 226 to 296) in mean patient cost. The intervention was associated with a mean improvement of 1.11 (95% CIs 0.35 to 1.87) in CRQ Total score and 0.002 (95% CIs -0.006 to 0.011) in QALYs gained. These translated into incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €850 per unit increase in CRQ Total score and €472 000 per additional QALY gained. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective at respective threshold values of €5000, €15 000, €25 000, €35 000 and €45 000 was 0.980, 0.992, 0.994, 0.994 and 0.994 in the CRQ Total score analysis compared to 0.000, 0.001, 0.001, 0.003 and 0.007 in the QALYs gained analysis.ConclusionsWhile analysis suggests that SEPRP was cost-effective if society is willing to pay at least €850 per one-point increase in disease-specific CRQ, no evidence exists when effectiveness was measured in QALYS gained.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN52 403 063.

Project description:BackgroundExacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are the main cause for hospitalisation. These hospitalisations result in a high pressure on hospital beds and high health care costs. Because of the increasing prevalence of COPD this will only become worse. Hospital at home is one of the alternatives that has been proved to be a safe alternative for hospitalisation in COPD. Most schemes are early assisted discharge schemes with specialised respiratory nurses providing care at home. Whether this type of service is cost-effective depends on the setting in which it is delivered and the way in which it is organised.Methods/designGO AHEAD (Assessment Of Going Home under Early Assisted Discharge) is a 3-months, randomised controlled, multi-centre clinical trial. Patients admitted to hospital for a COPD exacerbation are either discharged on the fourth day of admission and further treated at home, or receive usual inpatient hospital care. Home treatment is supervised by general nurses. Primary outcome is the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of an early assisted discharge intervention in comparison with usual inpatient hospital care for patients hospitalised with a COPD exacerbation. Secondary outcomes include effects on quality of life, primary informal caregiver burden and patient and primary caregiver satisfaction. Additionally, a discrete choice experiment is performed to provide insight in patient and informal caregiver preferences for different treatment characteristics. Measurements are performed on the first day of admission and 3 days, 7 days, 1 month and 3 months thereafter. Ethical approval has been obtained and the study has been registered.DiscussionThis article describes the study protocol of the GO AHEAD study. Early assisted discharge could be an effective and cost-effective method to reduce length of hospital stay in the Netherlands which is beneficial for patients and society. If effectiveness and cost-effectiveness can be proven, implementation in the Dutch health care system should be considered.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR1129.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the long term effectiveness of integrated disease management delivered in primary care on quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared with usual care.Design24 month, multicentre, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trialSetting40 general practices in the western part of the NetherlandsParticipantsPatients with COPD according to GOLD (Global Initiative for COPD) criteria. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, cognitive impairment, alcohol or drug misuse, and inability to fill in Dutch questionnaires. Practices were included if they were willing to create a multidisciplinary COPD team.InterventionGeneral practitioners, practice nurses, and specialised physiotherapists in the intervention group received a two day training course on incorporating integrated disease management in practice, including early recognition of exacerbations and self management, smoking cessation, physiotherapeutic reactivation, optimal diagnosis, and drug adherence. Additionally, the course served as a network platform and collaborating healthcare providers designed an individual practice plan to integrate integrated disease management into daily practice. The control group continued usual care (based on international guidelines).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was difference in health status at 12 months, measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ); quality of life, Medical Research Council dyspnoea, exacerbation related outcomes, self management, physical activity, and level of integrated care (PACIC) were also assessed as secondary outcomes.ResultsOf a total of 1086 patients from 40 clusters, 20 practices (554 patients) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 20 clusters (532 patients) to the usual care group. No difference was seen between groups in the CCQ at 12 months (mean difference -0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.08; P=0.8). After 12 months, no differences were seen in secondary outcomes between groups, except for the PACIC domain "follow-up/coordination" (indicating improved integration of care) and proportion of physically active patients. Exacerbation rates as well as number of days in hospital did not differ between groups. After 24 months, no differences were seen in outcomes, except for the PACIC follow-up/coordination domain.ConclusionIn this pragmatic study, an integrated disease management approach delivered in primary care showed no additional benefit compared with usual care, except improved level of integrated care and a self reported higher degree of daily activities. The contradictory findings to earlier positive studies could be explained by differences between interventions (provider versus patient targeted), selective reporting of positive trials, or little room for improvement in the already well developed Dutch healthcare system.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR2268.

Project description:ImportancePulmonary rehabilitation (PR) after exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is effective in reducing COPD hospitalizations and mortality while improving health-related quality of life, yet use of PR remains low. Estimates of the cost-effectiveness of PR in this setting could inform policies to improve uptake.ObjectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of participation in PR after hospitalization for COPD.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation estimated the cost-effectiveness of participation in PR compared with no PR after COPD hospitalization in the US using a societal perspective analysis. A Markov microsimulation model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness in the US health care system with a lifetime horizon, 1-year cycle length, and a discounted rate of 3% per year for both costs and outcomes. Data sources included published literature from October 1, 2001, to April 1, 2021, with the primary source being an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries living with COPD between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. The analysis was designed and conducted from October 1, 2019, to December 15, 2021. A base case microsimulation, univariate analyses, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed.InterventionsPulmonary rehabilitation compared with no PR after COPD hospitalization.Main outcomes and measuresNet cost in US dollars, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.ResultsAmong the hypothetical cohort with a mean age of 76.9 (age range, 60-92) years and 58.6% women, the base case microsimulation from a societal perspective demonstrated that PR resulted in net cost savings per patient of $5721 (95% prediction interval, $3307-$8388) and improved quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) (gain of 0.53 [95% prediction interval, 0.43-0.63] years). The findings of net cost savings and improved QALE with PR did not change in univariate analyses of patient age, the Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease stage, or number of PR sessions. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, PR resulted in net cost savings and improved QALE in every one of 1000 samples and was the dominant strategy in 100% of simulations at any willingness-to-pay threshold. In a 1-way sensitivity analysis of total cost, assuming completion of 36 sessions, a single PR session would remain cost saving to $171 per session and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $884 per session for $50 000/QALY and $1597 per session for $100 000/QALY.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, PR after COPD hospitalization appeared to result in net cost savings along with improvement in QALE. These findings suggest that stakeholders should identify policies to increase access and adherence to PR for patients with COPD.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the Danish 'TeleCare North' cluster-randomised trial.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the Danish 'TeleCare North' cluster-randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets