Cost-effectiveness of a model consultation to support self-management in patients with osteoarthritis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Oppong R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5965099 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and objectiveOsteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent, disabling disease requiring chronic management that is associated with an enormous individual and societal burden. This systematic review provides a global cost-effectiveness evaluation of pharmacological therapy for the management of OA.MethodsFollowing Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidance, a literature search strategy was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation database (NHS EED) to identify original articles containing cost-effectiveness evaluation of OA pharmacological treatment published before 4 November 2021. Risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to assess the reporting quality of included articles.ResultsDatabase searches identified 43 cost-effectiveness analysis studies (CEAs) on pharmacological management of OA that were conducted in 18 countries and four continents, with one study containing multiple continents. A total of four classes of drugs were assessed, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioid analgesics, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs), and intra-articular (IA) injections. The methodological approaches of these studies showed substantial heterogeneity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were (in 2021 US dollars) US$44.40 to US$307,013.56 for NSAIDS, US$11,984.84 to US$128,028.74 for opioids, US$10,930.17 to US$27,799.73 for SYSADOAs, and US$258.36 to US$58,447.97 for IA injections in different continents. The key drivers of cost effectiveness included medical resources, productivity, relative risks, and selected comparators.ConclusionThis review showed substantial heterogeneity among studies, ranging from a finding of dominance to very high ICERs, but most studies found interventions to be cost effective based on specific ICER thresholds. Important challenges in the analysis were related to the standardization and methodological quality of studies, as well as the presentation of results.
| S-EPMC9021110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNurse led self-help treatments for people with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis (CFS/ME) have been shown to be effective in reducing fatigue but their cost-effectiveness is unknown.MethodsCost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a single blind randomised controlled trial comparing pragmatic rehabilitation (PR) and supportive listening (SL) delivered by primary care nurses, and treatment as usual (TAU) delivered by the general practitioner (GP) in North West England. A within trial analysis was conducted comparing the costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) measured within the time frame of the trial. 296 patients aged 18 and over with CFS/ME diagnosed using the Oxford criteria were included in the cost-effectiveness analysis.ResultsTreatment as usual is less expensive and leads to better patient outcomes compared with Supportive Listening. Treatment as usual is also less expensive than Pragmatic Rehabilitation. PR was effective at reducing fatigue in the short term, but the impact of the intervention on QALYs was uncertain. However, based on the results of this trial, PR is unlikely to be cost-effective in this patient population.ConclusionsThis analysis does not support the introduction of SL. Any benefits generated by PR are unlikely to be of sufficient magnitude to warrant recommending PR for this patient group on cost-effectiveness grounds alone. However, dissatisfaction with current treatment options means simply continuing with 'treatment as usual' in primary care is unlikely to be acceptable to patients and practitioners.Trial registrationThe trial registration number is IRCTN74156610.
| S-EPMC3556109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIMS:To assess whether primary sector healthcare in the form of chiropractic care is cost-effective compared with self-management in patients with musculoskeletal chest pain, that is, a subgroup of patients with non-specific chest pain. METHODS AND RESULTS:115 adults aged 18-75?years with acute, non-specific chest pain of musculoskeletal origin were recruited from a cardiology department in Denmark. After ruling out acute coronary syndrome and receiving usual care, patients with musculoskeletal chest pain were randomised to 4?weeks of community-based chiropractic care (n=59) or to a single information session aimed at encouraging self-management as complementary to usual care (n=56). Data on resource use were obtained from Danish national registries and valued from a societal perspective. Patient cost and health-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; based on EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and Short Form 36-item Health Survey (SF-36)) were compared in cost-effectiveness analyses over 12?months from baseline. Mean costs were €2183 lower for the group with chiropractic care, but not statistically significant (95% CI -4410.5 to 43.0). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio suggested that chiropractic care was cost-effective with a probability of 97%, given a threshold value of €30?000 per QALY gained. In both groups, there was an increase in the health-related quality of life, and the mean increases were similar over the 12-month evaluation period. The mean differences in QALYs between the groups were negligible. CONCLUSIONS:Chiropractic care was more cost-effective than self-management. Therefore, chiropractic care can be seen as a good example of a targeted primary care approach for a subgroup of patients with non-specific chest pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT00462241.
| S-EPMC4860847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The cost-effectiveness of the recently-introduced generic celecoxib in knee OA has not been examined. METHOD:We used the Osteoarthritis Policy (OAPol) Model, a validated computer simulation of knee OA, to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of generic celecoxib in persons with knee OA. We examined eight treatment strategies consisting of generic celecoxib, over-the-counter (OTC) naproxen, or prescription naproxen, with or without prescription or OTC proton-pump-inhibitors (PPIs) to reduce gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. In the base case, we assumed that annual cost was $130 for OTC naproxen, $360 for prescription naproxen, and $880 for generic celecoxib. We considered a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and discounted costs and benefits at 3% annually. In sensitivity analyses we varied celecoxib toxicity, discontinuation, cost, and pain level. RESULTS:In the base case analysis of the high pain cohort (WOMAC 50), celecoxib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $284,630/QALY compared with OTC naproxen. Only under highly favorable cost, toxicity, and discontinuation assumptions (e.g., annual cost below $360, combined with a reduction in the cardiovascular (CV) event rates below baseline values) was celecoxib likely to be cost-effective. Celecoxib might also be cost-effective at an annual cost of $600 if CV toxicity were eliminated completely. In subjects with moderate pain (WOMAC 30), at the base case CV event rate of 0.2%, generic celecoxib was only cost-effective at the lowest plausible cost ($190). CONCLUSION:In knee OA patients with no comorbidities, generic celecoxib is not cost-effective at its current price.
| S-EPMC6334297 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of the WISDOM self-management intervention for type 2 diabetes compared with care as usual.DesignWe performed a difference-in-differences analysis to estimate differences in risk factors for diabetes complications between people in the WISDOM group (n = 25, 276) and a control group (n = 15, 272) using GP records. A decision analytic model was then used to extrapolate differences in risk factors into costs and outcomes in the long term.SettingParticipating GP practices in West Hampshire and Southampton, UK.ParticipantsAll people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes between January 1990 and March 2020 (n = 40,548).OutcomesDiabetes-related complications, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs to the English National Health Service at 5 years and lifetime.InterventionsThe WISDOM intervention included risk stratification, self-management education programme to professionals and people with type 2 diabetes, and monitoring of key treatment targets.ResultsWISDOM was associated with less atrial fibrillation [p = 0.001], albuminuria [p = 0.002] and blood pressure [p = 0.098]. Among all people in the intervention group, WISDOM led to 51 [95%CI: 25; 76] QALYs gained and saved £278,036 [95%CI: -631,900; 176,392] in the first 5 years after its implementation compared with care as usual. During those people' lifetime, WISDOM led to 253 [95%CI: 75; 404] QALYs gained and cost saving of £126,380 [95%CI: -1,466,008; 1,339,628]. The gains in QALYs were a result of reduced diabetes-related complications through improved management of the associated risk factors.ConclusionsThe WISDOM risk-stratification and education intervention for type 2 diabetes appear to be cost-effective compared to usual care by reducing diabetes complications.
| S-EPMC9544153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient blood management (PBM) is a multidisciplinary concept focused on the management of anaemia, minimisation of iatrogenic blood loss and rational use of allogeneic blood products. The aims of this study were: (i) to analyse post-operative outcome in patients with liberal vs restrictive exposure to allogeneic blood products and (ii) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PBM in patients undergoing surgery.Materials and methodsA systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed to compare post-operative complications in predominantly non-transfused patients (restrictive transfusion group) and patients who received one to three units of red blood cells (liberal transfusion group). Outcome measures included sepsis with/without pneumonia, acute renal failure, acute myocardial infarction and acute stroke. In a second step, a health economic model was developed to calculate cost-effectiveness of PBM (PBM-arm vs control-arm) for simulated cohorts of 10,000 cardiac and non-cardiac surgical patients based on the results of the meta-analysis and costs.ResultsOut of 478 search results, 22 studies were analysed in the meta-analysis. The pooled relative risk of any complication in the restrictive transfusion group was 0.43 for non-cardiac and 0.34 for cardiac surgical patients. In the simulation model, PBM was related to reduced complications (1,768 vs 1,245) and complication-related deaths (411 vs 304) compared to standard care. PBM-related costs of therapy exceeded costs of the control arm by € 150 per patient. However, total costs, including hospitalisation, were higher in the control-arm for both non-cardiac (€ 2,885.11) and cardiac surgery patients (€ 1,760.69). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio including hospitalisation showed savings of € 30,458 (non-cardiac and cardiac surgery patients) for preventing one complication and € 128,023 (non-cardiac and cardiac surgery patients) for prevention of one complication-related death in the PBM-arm.DiscussionOur results indicate that PBM may be associated with fewer adverse clinical outcomes compared to control management and may, thereby, be cost-effective.
| S-EPMC6343592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The progressive nature of Parkinson's disease, its complex treatment regimens and the high rates of comorbid conditions make self-management and treatment adherence a challenge. Clinicians have limited face-to-face consultation time with Parkinson's disease patients, making it difficult to comprehensively address non-adherence. Here we share the results from a multi-centre (seven centres) randomised controlled trial conducted in England and Scotland to assess the impact of using a smartphone-based Parkinson's tracker app to promote patient self-management, enhance treatment adherence and quality of clinical consultation. Eligible Parkinson's disease patients were randomised using a 1:1 ratio according to a computer-generated random sequence, stratified by centre and using blocks of variable size, to intervention Parkinson's Tracker App or control (Treatment as Usual). Primary outcome was the self-reported score of adherence to treatment (Morisky medication adherence scale -8) at 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were Quality of Life (Parkinson's disease questionnaire -39), quality of consultation for Parkinson's disease patients (Patient-centred questionnaire for Parkinson's disease), impact on non-motor symptoms (Non-motor symptoms questionnaire), depression and anxiety (Hospital anxiety and depression scale) and beliefs about medication (Beliefs about Medication Questionnaire) at 16 weeks. Primary and secondary endpoints were analysed using a generalised linear model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline measurement as the covariate. 158 patients completed the study (Parkinson's tracker app = 68 and TAU = 90). At 16 weeks Parkinson's tracker app significantly improved adherence, compared to treatment as usual (mean difference: 0.39, 95%CI 0.04-0.74; p = 0.0304) with no confounding effects of gender, number of comorbidities and age. Among secondary outcomes, Parkinson's tracker app significantly improved patients' perception of quality of consultation (0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.27; p = 0.0110). The change in non-motor symptoms was -0.82 (95% CI -1.75 to 0.10; p = 0.0822). 72% of participants in the Parkinson's tracker app group continued to use and engage with the application throughout the 16-week trial period. The Parkinson's tracker app can be an effective and novel way of enhancing self-reported medication adherence and quality of clinical consultation by supporting self-management in Parkinson's disease in patients owning smartphones. Further work is recommended to determine whether the benefits of the intervention are maintained beyond the 16 week study period.
| S-EPMC5460235 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with long-term conditions are increasingly the focus of quality improvement activities in health services to reduce the impact of these conditions on quality of life and to reduce the burden on care utilisation. There is significant interest in the potential for self-management support to improve health and reduce utilisation in these patient populations, but little consensus concerning the optimal model that would best provide such support. We describe the implementation and evaluation of self-management support through an evidence-based 'whole systems' model involving patient support, training for primary care teams, and service re-organisation, all integrated into routine delivery within primary care.MethodsThe evaluation involves a large-scale, multi-site study of the implementation, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of this model of self-management support using a cluster randomised controlled trial in patients with three long-term conditions of diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The outcome measures include healthcare utilisation and quality of life. We describe the methods of the cluster randomised trial.DiscussionIf the 'whole systems' model proves effective and cost-effective, it will provide decision-makers with a model for the delivery of self-management support for populations with long-term conditions that can be implemented widely to maximise 'reach' across the wider patient population.Trial registration numberISRCTN: ISRCTN90940049.
| S-EPMC3274470 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Effectiveness of Internet-based self-management in patients with asthma has been shown, but its cost-effectiveness is unknown. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of Internet-based asthma self-management compared with usual care. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial, with 12 months follow-up. Patients were aged 18 to 50 year and had physician diagnosed asthma. The Internet-based self-management program involved weekly on-line monitoring of asthma control with self-treatment advice, remote Web communications, and Internet-based information. We determined quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as measured by the EuroQol-5D and costs for health care use and absenteeism. We performed a detailed cost price analysis for the primary intervention. QALYs did not statistically significantly differ between the Internet group and usual care: difference 0.024 (95% CI, -0.016 to 0.065). Costs of the Internet-based intervention were $254 (95% CI, $243 to $265) during the period of 1 year. From a societal perspective, the cost difference was $641 (95% CI, $-1957 to $3240). From a health care perspective, the cost difference was $37 (95% CI, $-874 to $950). At a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY, the probability that Internet-based self-management was cost-effective compared to usual care was 62% and 82% from a societal and health care perspective, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Internet-based self-management of asthma can be as effective as current asthma care and costs are similar. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN79864465.
| S-EPMC3214043 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundDizziness is a very common symptom that often leads to reduced quality of life, anxiety and emotional distress, loss of fitness, lack of confidence in balance, unsteadiness and an increased risk of falling. Most dizzy patients are managed in primary care by reassurance and medication to suppress symptoms. Trials have shown that chronic dizziness can be treated effectively in primary care using a self-help booklet to teach patients vestibular rehabilitation exercises that promote neurological adaptation and skill and confidence in balance. However, brief support from a trained nurse was provided in these trials, and this model of managing dizzy patients has not been taken up due to a lack of skills and resources in primary care. The aim of this trial is to evaluate two new alternative models of delivery that may be more feasible and cost-effective.Methods/designIn a single blind two-centre pragmatic controlled trial, we will randomise 330 patients from 30 practices to a) self-help booklet with telephone support from a vestibular therapist, b) self-help booklet alone, c) routine medical care. Symptoms, disability, handicap and quality of life will be assessed by validated questionnaires administered by post at baseline, immediately post-treatment (3 months), and at one year follow-up. The study is powered to test our primary hypothesis, that the self-help booklet with telephone support will be more effective than routine care. We will also explore the effectiveness of the booklet without any support, and calculate the costs of treatment in each arm.DiscussionIf our trial indicates that patients can cost-effectively manage their dizziness in primary care, then it can be easily rolled out to relieve the symptoms of the many patients in primary care who currently have chronic, untreated, disabling dizziness. Treatment in primary care may reduce the development of psychological and physical sequelae that cause handicap and require treatment. There is also the potential to reduce the cost to the NHS of treating dizziness by reducing demand for referral to secondary care for specialist assessment and treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov trial registration ID number: NCT00732797.
| S-EPMC2810289 | biostudies-literature