Dataset Information

A Telemonitoring Intervention for Cirrhotic Ascites Management Is Cost-Saving.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with cirrhosis and ascites experience frequent hospital admissions, leading to poor quality of life and high healthcare costs. Monitoring weight is a component of ascites care and telemonitoring may improve outcomes and costs. Goals We aimed to evaluate the cost and outcomes of current care compared to a telemonitoring system for ascites. Study We developed a decision-analytic model that examined 100 simulated patients over a 6-month horizon. We compared usual care to a new telemonitoring program, which we estimate costs $50,000/6 months.

Results

The cost of standard of care for 100 patients with cirrhotic ascites over a 6-month period is $167,500 more expensive than telemonitoring. By varying parameter probabilities by ± 10% and outcome costs by ± 20%, we found that standard of care remains more expensive than care with a telemonitoring intervention by $9400 to $340,200 per 6-month period. Standard of care leads to 9 more admissions (range 4 to 12) than a telemonitoring intervention, while telemonitoring leads to 9 more outpatient visits (range 6 to 9) and 28 additional outpatient large volume paracenteses (LVPs) (range 17 to 28). With more and less expensive telemonitoring interventions, standard of care remained more expensive. With 50% adherence to the intervention, standard of care was $89,848 more expensive.

Conclusions

In almost all probability and cost scenarios, a telemonitoring intervention is cost-saving for the management of cirrhotic ascites. Using hospital admissions as a surrogate for quality of care, patient outcomes are improved primarily though more proactive medical intervention and more LVPs.

SUBMITTER: Bloom PP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8136259 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAscites is a common, painful, and serious complication of cirrhosis. Body weight is a reliable proxy for ascites volume; therefore, daily weight monitoring is recommended to optimize ascites management.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the feasibility of a smartphone app in facilitating outpatient ascites management.MethodsIn this feasibility study, patients with cirrhotic ascites requiring active management were identified in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Patients were provided with a Bluetooth-connected scale, which transmitted weight data to a smartphone app and then via the internet to an electronic medical record (EMR). Weights were monitored every weekday. In the event of a weight change of ≥5 lbs in 1 week, patients were called and administered a short symptom questionnaire, and providers received an email alert. The primary outcomes of this study were the percentage of enrolled days during which weight data were successfully transmitted to an EMR and the percentage of weight alerts that prompted responses by the provider.ResultsIn this study, 25 patients were enrolled: 12 (48%) were male, and the mean age was 58 (SD 13; range 35-81) years. A total of 18 (72%) inpatients were enrolled. Weight data were successfully transmitted to an EMR during 71.2% (697/979) of the study enrollment days, with technology issues reported on 16.5% (162/979) of the days. Of a total of 79 weight change alerts fired, 41 (52%) were triggered by weight loss and 38 (48%) were by weight gain. Providers responded in some fashion to 66 (84%) of the weight alerts and intervened in response to 45 (57%) of the alerts, for example, by contacting the patient, scheduling clinic or paracentesis appointments, modifying the diuretic dose, or requesting a laboratory workup. Providers responded equally to weight increase and decrease alerts (P=.87). The staff called patients a mean of 3.7 (SD 3.5) times per patient, and the number of phone calls correlated with technology issues (r=0.60; P=.002). A total of 60% (15/25) of the patients chose to extend their participation beyond 30 days. A total of 17 patient readmissions occurred during the study period, with only 4 (24%) related to ascites.ConclusionsWe demonstrated the feasibility of a smartphone app to facilitate the management of ascites and reported excellent rates of patient and provider engagement. This innovation could enable early therapeutic intervention, thereby decreasing the burden of morbidity and mortality among patients with cirrhosis.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of managing patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) using telemonitoring versus usual care from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS).DesignWithin trial post hoc economic evaluation of data from a pragmatic randomised controlled trial using an intention-to-treat approach.Setting20 socioeconomically diverse general practices in Lothian, Scotland.Participants401 primary care patients aged 29-95 with uncontrolled daytime ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) (?135/85, but <210/135 mm Hg).InterventionParticipants were centrally randomised to 6 months of a telemonitoring service comprising of self-monitoring of BP transmitted to a secure website for review by the attending nurse/doctor and patient, with optional automated patient decision-support by text/email (n=200) or usual care (n-201). Randomisation was undertaken with minimisation for age, sex, family practice, use of three or more hypertension drugs and self-monitoring history.Main outcome measuresMean difference in total NHS costs between trial arms and blinded assessment of mean cost per 1 mm Hg systolic BP point reduced.ResultsHome telemonitoring of BP costs significantly more than usual care (mean difference per patient £115.32 (95% CI £83.49 to £146.63; p<0.001)). Increased costs were due to telemonitoring service costs, patient training and additional general practitioner and nurse consultations. The mean cost of systolic BP reduction was £25.56/mm Hg (95% CI £16.06 to £46.89) per patient.ConclusionsOver the 6-month trial period, supported telemonitoring was more effective at reducing BP than usual care but also more expensive. If clinical gains are maintained, these additional costs would be very likely to be compensated for by reductions in the cost of future cardiovascular events. Longer-term modelling of costs and outcomes is required to fully examine the cost-effectiveness implications.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72614272.