scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of an Internet-Based Stress Management Intervention Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanny Kählke ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
Filip Smit ◽  
Matthias Berking ◽  
Dirk Lehr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stress Management ◽  
Perceived Stress ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

BACKGROUND Work-related stress is widespread among employees and associated with high costs for German society. Internet-based stress management interventions (iSMIs) are effective in reducing such stress. However, evidence for their cost-effectiveness is scant. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a guided iSMI for employees. METHODS A sample of 264 employees with elevated symptoms of perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale≥22) was assigned to either the iSMI or a waitlist control condition (WLC) with unrestricted access to treatment as usual. Participants were recruited in Germany in 2013 and followed through 2014, and data were analyzed in 2017. The iSMI consisted of 7 sessions plus 1 booster session. It was based on problem-solving therapy and emotion regulation techniques. Costs were measured from the societal perspective, including all direct and indirect medical costs. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis relating costs to a symptom-free person and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, respectively. Sampling uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrapping (N=5000). RESULTS When the society is not willing to pay anything to get an additional symptom-free person (eg, willingness-to-pay [WTP]=€0), there was a 70% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC. This probability rose to 85% and 93% when the society is willing to pay €1000 and €2000, respectively, for achieving an additional symptom-free person. The cost-utility analysis yielded a 76% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC at a conservative WTP threshold of €20,000 (US $25,800) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS Offering an iSMI to stressed employees has an acceptable likelihood of being cost-effective compared with WLC. CLINICALTRIAL German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00004749; https://www.drks.de/DRKS00004749 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR RR2-10.1186/1471-2458-13-655

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of an Internet-Based Stress Management Intervention Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial

10.2196/10866 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. e10866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanny Kählke ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
Filip Smit ◽  
Matthias Berking ◽  
Dirk Lehr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stress Management ◽  
Perceived Stress ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Background Work-related stress is widespread among employees and associated with high costs for German society. Internet-based stress management interventions (iSMIs) are effective in reducing such stress. However, evidence for their cost-effectiveness is scant. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a guided iSMI for employees. Methods A sample of 264 employees with elevated symptoms of perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale≥22) was assigned to either the iSMI or a waitlist control condition (WLC) with unrestricted access to treatment as usual. Participants were recruited in Germany in 2013 and followed through 2014, and data were analyzed in 2017. The iSMI consisted of 7 sessions plus 1 booster session. It was based on problem-solving therapy and emotion regulation techniques. Costs were measured from the societal perspective, including all direct and indirect medical costs. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis relating costs to a symptom-free person and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, respectively. Sampling uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrapping (N=5000). Results When the society is not willing to pay anything to get an additional symptom-free person (eg, willingness-to-pay [WTP]=€0), there was a 70% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC. This probability rose to 85% and 93% when the society is willing to pay €1000 and €2000, respectively, for achieving an additional symptom-free person. The cost-utility analysis yielded a 76% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC at a conservative WTP threshold of €20,000 (US $25,800) per QALY gained. Conclusions Offering an iSMI to stressed employees has an acceptable likelihood of being cost-effective compared with WLC. Trial Registration German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00004749; https://www.drks.de/DRKS00004749 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.1186/1471-2458-13-655

Economic evaluation of compression stockings for the prevention of venous leg ulcer recurrence in Ontario

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandjar Djalalov ◽  
Shayan Sehatzadeh ◽  
David H Keast ◽  
William WL Wong
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Ulcer Recurrence ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Compression Stockings ◽  
Old Patients ◽  
Life Years

Objective: Approximately between 1.5 and 3.0 per 1000 people are affected by venous leg ulcers (VLUs). The treatment and management of VLUs is costly and recurrence is a major concern. There is evidence that compression stockings can reduce the rate of re-ulceration compared with no compression. We present the first cost-effective analysis of compression stockings in preventing recurrence of VLUs from the perspective of the Ontario healthcare system. Method: A cost-utility analysis with a five-year time horizon was conducted. Use of compression stockings was compared with usual care (no compression stockings). We simulated a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with healed VLUs, using a state-transition model. Model input parameters were obtained mainly from the published literature. We estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and direct medical costs. We conducted various sensitivity analyses. Results: Compared with usual care, compression stockings were associated with higher costs and increased QALYs. Cost-utility analysis showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of compression stockings was $23,864 per QALY gained compared with no compression stockings. The most influential drivers of cost-effectiveness were the utility value of healed VLUs, cost of stockings, number of stocking replacements, monthly prevention cost and the risk of VLU recurrence. Conclusion: Compared with usual care, compression stockings were cost-effective in preventing VLUs, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000. These observations were consistent even when uncertainty in model inputs and parameters were considered.

scholarly journals A Telemonitoring Programme in Patients with Heart Failure in France: A Cost-Utility Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mégane Caillon ◽  
Rémi Sabatier ◽  
Damien Legallois ◽  
Laurène Courouve ◽  
Valérie Donio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background Certain telemedicine programmes for heart failure (HF) have been shown to reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalisations, but their cost-effectiveness remains controversial. The SCAD programme is a home-based interactive telemonitoring service for HF, which is one of the longest-running and largest telemonitoring programmes for HF in France. The objective of this cost-utility analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the SCAD programme with respect to standard hospital-based care in patients with HF. Methods A Markov model simulating hospitalisations and mortality in patients with HF was constructed to estimate outcomes and costs. The model included six distinct health states (three ‘not hospitalised’ states, two ‘hospitalisation for heart failure’ states, both depending on the number of previous hospitalisations, and one death state. The model lifetime in the base case was ten years. Model inputs were based on published literature. Outputs (costs and QALYs) were compared between SCAD participants and standard care. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the input parameters of the model. Results The number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was 3.75 in the standard care setting and 4.41 in the SCAD setting. This corresponds to a gain in QALYs provided by the SCAD programme of 0.65 over the ten-year lifetime of the model. The estimated total cost was €30,932 in the standard care setting and €35,177 in the SCAD setting, with an incremental cost of €4,245. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the SCAD programme over standard care was estimated at €4,579/QALY. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables that had the most impact on the ICER were HF management costs. The likelihood of the SCAD programme being considered cost-effective was 90% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €11,800. Conclusions Enrolment of patients into the SCAD programme is highly cost-effective. Extension of the programme to other hospitals and more patients would have a limited budget impact but provide important clinical benefits. This finding should also be taken into account in new public health policies aimed at encouraging a shift from inpatient to ambulatory care.

scholarly journals 1-year cost-utility analysis of prostate artery embolization (PAE) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e000071
Author(s):  
Nikisha Patel ◽  
Nathan Yung ◽  
Ganesh Vigneswaran ◽  
Laure de Preux ◽  
Drew Maclean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Prostate Artery Embolization ◽  
Cost Effective Alternative ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveTo determine whether prostate artery embolization (PAE) is a cost-effective alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the management of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) after 1-year follow-up.Design, setting and main outcome measuresA retrospective cost-utility analysis over a 12-month time period was conducted to compare the two interventions from a National Health Service perspective. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from data collected during the observational UK Register of Prostate Embolisation (UK-ROPE) Study. Costs for both PAE and TURP were derived from University Hospital Southampton, a tertiary referral centre for BPH and the largest contributor to the UK-ROPE. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was derived from cost and QALY values associated with both interventions to assess the cost-effectiveness of PAE versus TURP. Further sensitivity analyses involved a decision tree model to account for the impact of patient-reported complications on the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.ResultsThe mean patient age for TURP (n=31) and PAE (n=133) was 69 and 65.6 years, respectively. In comparison to TURP, PAE was cheaper due to shorter patient stays and the lack of necessity for an operating theatre. Analysis revealed an ICER of £64 798.10 saved per QALY lost when comparing PAE to TURP after 1-year follow-up.ConclusionOur findings suggest that PAE is initially a cost-effective alternative to TURP for the management of BPH after 1-year follow-up. Due to a higher reintervention rate in the PAE group, this benefit may be lost in subsequent years.Trial registration numberNCT02434575.

scholarly journals Cost-Utility Analysis of Hearing Aid Device for Older Adults in the Community: A Delayed Start Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Palvinder Kaur ◽  
Sheue Lih Chong ◽  
Palvannan Kannapiran ◽  
Kelvin WS Teo ◽  
Charis Ng Wei Ling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Healthcare Costs ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Index Visit ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BackgroundHearing aids (HA) is the primary medical intervention aimed to reduce hearing handicap. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of HA for older adults who were volunteered to be screened for hearing loss in a community based mobile hearing clinic (MHC).MethodsParticipants with (1) at least moderate hearing loss (≥40 dB HL) in at least one ear, (2) no prior usage of HA, (3) no ear related medical complications, and (4) had a Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥18 were eligible for this study. Using a delayed-start study design, participants were randomized into the immediate-start (Fitted) group where HA was fitted immediately or the delayed-start (Not Fitted) group where HA fitting was delayed for three months. Cost utility analysis was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of being fitted with HA combined with short-term, aural rehabilitation with the routine care group who were not fitted with HA. Incremental cost effectiveness ration (ICER) was computed. Health Utility Index (HUI-3) was used to measure utility gain, a component required to derive the quality adjusted life years (QALY). Total costs included direct healthcare costs, direct non-healthcare costs and indirect costs (productivity loss of participant and caregiver). Demographic data was collected during the index visit to MHC. Cost and utility data were collected three months after index visit and projected to five years.ResultsThere were 264 participants in the Fitted group and 163 participants in the Not Fitted group. No between-group differences in age, gender, ethnicity, housing type and degree of hearing loss were observed at baseline. At 3 months, HA fitting led to a mean utility increase of 0.12 and an ICER gain of S$42,790/QALY (95% CI: S$32, 793/QALY to S$62,221/QALY). At five years, the ICER was estimated to be at S$11,964/QALY (95% CI: S$8,996/QALY to S$17,080/QALY) assuming 70% of the participants continued using the HA. As fewer individuals continued using their fitted HA, the ICER increased.ConclusionsHA fitting can be cost-effective and could improve the quality of life of hearing-impaired older individuals within a brief period of device fitting. Long term cost-effectiveness of HA fitting is dependent on its continued usage.

scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of hearing aid device for older adults in the community: a delayed start study

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Palvinder Kaur ◽  
Sheue Lih Chong ◽  
Palvannan Kannapiran ◽  
W.-S. Kelvin Teo ◽  
Charis Ng Wei Ling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Healthcare Costs ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Index Visit ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Hearing aids (HA) is the primary medical intervention aimed to reduce hearing handicap. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of HA for older adults who were volunteered to be screened for hearing loss in a community-based mobile hearing clinic (MHC). Methods Participants with (1) at least moderate hearing loss (≥40 dB HL) in at least one ear, (2) no prior usage of HA, (3) no ear related medical complications, and (4) had a Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥ 18 were eligible for this study. Using a delayed-start study design, participants were randomized into the immediate-start (Fitted) group where HA was fitted immediately or the delayed-start (Not Fitted) group where HA fitting was delayed for three months. Cost utility analysis was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of being fitted with HA combined with short-term, aural rehabilitation with the routine care group who were not fitted with HA. Incremental cost effectiveness ration (ICER) was computed. Health Utility Index (HUI-3) was used to measure utility gain, a component required to derive the quality adjusted life years (QALY). Total costs included direct healthcare costs, direct non-healthcare costs and indirect costs (productivity loss of participant and caregiver). Demographic data was collected during the index visit to MHC. Cost and utility data were collected three months after index visit and projected to five years. Results There were 264 participants in the Fitted group and 163 participants in the Not Fitted group. No between-group differences in age, gender, ethnicity, housing type and degree of hearing loss were observed at baseline. At 3 months, HA fitting led to a mean utility increase of 0.12 and an ICER gain of S$42,790/QALY (95% CI: S$32, 793/QALY to S$62,221/QALY). At five years, the ICER was estimated to be at S$11,964/QALY (95% CI: S$8996/QALY to S$17,080/QALY) assuming 70% of the participants continued using the HA. As fewer individuals continued using their fitted HA, the ICER increased. Conclusions HA fitting can be cost-effective and could improve the quality of life of hearing-impaired older individuals within a brief period of device fitting. Long term cost-effectiveness of HA fitting is dependent on its continued usage.

scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of olanzapine in four-drug antiemetic therapy in Japanese patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Kondo ◽  
Tomoya Tachi ◽  
Takayoshi Sakakibara ◽  
Jun Kato ◽  
Takahito Mizuno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Antiemetic Therapy ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Purpose Olanzapine has been shown to have an additive effect on the three-drug antiemetic therapy, consisting of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone, in a highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Although olanzapine may be more economical than aprepitant or palonosetron, an adequate cost-efficacy analysis has not been conducted. We conducted a cost-utility analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine in four-drug antiemetic therapy among Japanese patients.Methods We simulated model patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and developed a decision-analytical model of patients receiving triple antiemetic therapy with or without olanzapine. The cost, probabilities, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each treatment were calculated from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare payer. The threshold ICER was set at 45,867 United States dollars (USD) (5 million Japanese yen) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The probabilities, utility value, and other costs were obtained from published sources. The robustness of this model was validated by one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results The calculated ICER was 5,156 USD/QALY, which was below the threshold. Under the set conditions, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 100% probability that olanzapine was cost-effective. Based on the one-way sensitivity analysis, reducing the cost of olanzapine below 10.78 USD placed the ICER below the threshold. Conclusion Olanzapine was cost-effective in the four-drug antiemetic therapy for Japanese patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy

PP12 Cost-Utility Analysis Of Dolutegravir For HIV-1 Infection In Thailand

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 39-40
Author(s):  
Panida Yoopetch ◽  
Chalida Khemvaranan
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Essential Medicines ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Hiv Patients ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Hiv 1

IntroductionHIV drug resistance (HIVDR) has significantly increased in Thailand. However, a new generation integrase inhibitor, dolutegravir, has not yet been included in the country's National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM). Since these drugs are high in costs, an economic evaluation is needed to support the decision. This study aims to assess the cost-utility analysis of dolutegravir for HIV-1 infection in Thailand.MethodsA Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility as follows: (i) the current practice of darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) + tenofovir (TDF) + lamivudine (3TC); (ii) DRV/r + etravirine (ETR) + TDF + 3TC; (iii) DRV/r + raltegravir (RAL) + TDF + 3TC; (iv) DRV/r + RAL + ETR; and (v) DRV/r + RAL + maraviroc (MVC); (vi) DRV/r + dolutegravir (DTG) + MVC; (vii) DRV/r + DTG + ETR; (viii) DRV/r + DTG + TDF + 3TC. The model incorporated cost data adjusted for 2017 using the consumer price index, and effectiveness data from a review of published studies. Outcomes were measured in life years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3 percent per annum. Finally, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to deal with uncertainties around the parameters.ResultsAll alternative treatment regimens for HIV patients resistant to first- and second-line antiretroviral therapies (ARTs) in Thailand were found to be not cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of THB 160,000/QALY (USD 5,197/QALY). However, the eighth regimen of DRV/r + DTG + TDF + 3TC had the lowest lifetime cost at THB 5.3 million (USD 172,145) while increasing QALY by approximately 14 QALYs.ConclusionsAt a societal WTP of THB 160,000 per QALY gained (USD 5,197 per QALY gained), dolutegravir for HIV patients resistant to first- and second-line ARTs in Thailand was found to be not cost-effective.

scholarly journals Cost-Utility Analysis of Hearing Aid Device for Older Adults in the Community: A Delayed Start Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Palvinder Kaur ◽  
Sheue Lih Chong ◽  
Palvannan Kannapiran ◽  
Kelvin WS Teo ◽  
Charis Ng Wei Ling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Healthcare Costs ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Index Visit ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Hearing aids (HA) is the primary medical intervention aimed to reduce hearing handicap. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of HA for older adults who were volunteered to be screened for hearing loss in a community based mobile hearing clinic (MHC).Methods Participants with (1) at least moderate hearing loss (≥40 dB HL) in at least one ear, (2) no prior usage of HA, (3) no ear related medical complications, and (4) had a Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥18 were eligible for this study. Using a delayed-start study design, participants were randomized into the immediate-start (Fitted) group where HA was fitted immediately or the delayed-start (Not Fitted) group where HA fitting was delayed for three months. Cost utility analysis was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of being fitted with HA combined with short-term, aural rehabilitation with the routine care group who were not fitted with HA. Incremental cost effectiveness ration (ICER) was computed. Health Utility Index (HUI-3) was used to measure utility gain, a component required to derive the quality adjusted life years (QALY). Total costs included direct healthcare costs, direct non-healthcare costs and indirect costs (productivity loss of participant and caregiver). Demographic data was collected during the index visit to MHC. Cost and utility data were collected three months after index visit and projected to five years.Results There were 264 participants in the Fitted group and 163 participants in the Not Fitted group. No between-group differences in age, gender, ethnicity, housing type and degree of hearing loss were observed at baseline. At 3 months, HA fitting led to a mean utility increase of 0.12 and an ICER gain of S$42,790/QALY (95% CI: S$32, 793/QALY to S$62,221/QALY). At five years, the ICER was estimated to be at S$11,964/QALY (95% CI: S$8,996/QALY to S$17,080/QALY) assuming 70% of the participants continued using the HA. As fewer individuals continued using their fitted HA, the ICER increased.Conclusions HA fitting can be cost-effective and could improve the quality of life of hearing-impaired older individuals within a brief period of device fitting. Long term cost-effectiveness of HA fitting is dependent on its continued usage.

scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of remote monitoring of users with pacemakers five years after implantation

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Lopez-Villegas ◽  
R Bautista-Mesa ◽  
S Peiro ◽  
D Catalan-Matamoros ◽  
E Robles-Musso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Hospital Visits ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

Abstract Introduction Cost-effectiveness studies on pacemakers have increased in the last years. However the number of long-term cost-utility studies is limited. The objective of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing remote monitoring (RM) versus conventional monitoring (CM) in hospital of patients with pacemakers, 5 years after implant. Methods Under a controlled, not randomized nor masked clinical trial, 82 patients with pacemaker were initially selected (CM = 52; RM = 30). Patients were monitored during 5 years, after what a total 34 for CM in hospital and 21 for RM finalised the study. A cost-utility analysis was conducted to assess cost-utility of RM in terms of costs per gained quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs from National Health Service (NHS) and patient perspectives were considered. Results After 60-months of follow-up, total costs per patient were 23.02% lower in the RM than in the CM group, corresponding to a €82.10 cost saving per patient (p = 0.033). However, the reduction of in-hospital visits derived from RM does not impact significantly costs from the NHS perspective, with a cost saving of 15.04% per patient (p = 0.144). Patients in the CM group showed a slightly better QALY at the end of the study (3.579) than RM group (3.306). Costs/QALYs obtained by the RM group were higher than the CM group (p = 0.773). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CM in comparison to RM becomes positive (€301.16). Conclusions This study confirms RM of patients with pacemakers appears still as a cost-effective alternative to conventional monitoring in hospital after 5 years. Key messages Total costs per patient were 23.02% lower in the Remote Monitoring than in the Conventional Monitoring group (p = 0.033). The reduction of in-hospital visits derived from Remote Monitoring does not impact significantly costs from the NHS perspective, with a cost saving of 15.04% per patient (p = 0.144).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document