Cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led telemonitoring intervention based on peak expiratory flow measurements in asthmatics: results of a randomised controlled trial

Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, University Hospital Maastricht, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation (Impact Factor: 0.87). 02/2007; 5:10. DOI: 10.1186/1478-7547-5-10
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Asthma is a chronic lung disease in which recurrent asthma symptoms create a substantial burden to individuals and their families. At the same time the economic burden associated with asthma is considerable.
The cost-effectiveness study was part of a single centre prospective randomised controlled trial comparing a nurse-led telemonitoring programme to usual care in a population of asthmatic outpatients. The study included 109 asthmatic outpatients (56 children; 53 adults). The duration of follow-up was 12 months, and measurements were performed at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 months. Patients were asked to transfer their monitor data at least twice daily and by judging the received data and following a stepwise intervention protocol a nurse was able to act as the main caregiver in the intervention group. In both groups the EQ-5D and the SF-6D were used to obtain estimates of health state utilities. One year health care costs, patient and family costs, and productivity losses were calculated. The mean incremental costs were weighted against the mean incremental effect in terms of QALY.
The study population generally represented mild to moderate asthmatics. No significant differences were found between the groups with regard to the generic quality of life. Overall, the mean health care costs per patient were higher in the intervention group than in the control group. The intervention costs mainly caused the cost difference between the groups. The intervention costs the society euro 31,035/QALY gained with regard to adults and with regard to children euro 59,071/QALY gained.
If the outcome is measured by generic quality of life the nurse-led telemonitoring programme is of limited cost-effectiveness in the study population. From the societal perspective the probability of the programme being cost-effective compared to regular care was 85% at a ceiling ratio of euro 80,000/QALY gained among the adults and 68% among the children. A decrease in the price of the asthma monitor will substantial increase the probability of the programme to be cost-effective.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Chronic disease has become an increasingly important issue for individuals and healthcare organizations across Canada. Home telehealth may have the potential to alleviate the economic and social challenges associated with rising rates of chronic disease. An aim of this review was to gather and synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of home telehealth in chronic disease management. Materials and Methods: We searched the Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PAIS databases for studies published in English from January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2010. Academic publications, white papers, and gray literature were all considered eligible for inclusion, provided an original research element was present. Articles were screened for relevance. Results: One hundred one articles on quantitative or mixed-methods studies reported the effects of home telehealth on disease state, symptoms, and quality of life in chronic disease patients. Studies were consistent in finding that home telehealth was equivalent or superior to usual care. Conclusions: The literature strongly supports the use of home telehealth as an equally effective alternative to usual care. The circumstances under which home telehealth emerges as significantly better than usual care have not been extensively researched. Further research into factors affecting the effectiveness of home telehealth would support more widespread realization of telehealth's potential benefits.
    Telemedicine and e-Health 04/2014; 20(4):346-80. DOI:10.1089/tmj.2013.0249 · 1.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BackgroundThe quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a recognised outcome measure in health economic evaluations. QALY incorporates individual preferences and identifies health gains by combining mortality and morbidity into one single index number. A literature review was conducted to examine and discuss the use of QALYs to measure outcomes in telehealth evaluations.MethodsEvaluations were identified via a literature search in all relevant databases. Only economic evaluations measuring both costs and QALYs using primary patient level data of two or more alternatives were included.ResultsA total of 17 economic evaluations estimating QALYs were identified. All evaluations used validated generic health related-quality of life (HRQoL) instruments to describe health states. They used accepted methods for transforming the quality scores into utility values. The methodology used varied between the evaluations. The evaluations used four different preference measures (EQ-5D, SF-6D, QWB and HUI3), and utility scores were elicited from the general population. Most studies reported the methodology used in calculating QALYs. The evaluations were less transparent in reporting utility weights at different time points and variability around utilities and QALYs. Few made adjustments for differences in baseline utilities. The QALYs gained in the reviewed evaluations varied from 0.001 to 0.118 in implying a small but positive effect of telehealth intervention on patient’s health. The evaluations reported mixed cost-effectiveness results.ConclusionThe use of QALYs in telehealth evaluations has increased over the last few years. Different methodologies and utility measures have been used to calculate QALYs. A more harmonised methodology and utility measure is needed to ensure comparability across telehealth evaluations.
    BMC Health Services Research 08/2014; 14(1):332. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-14-332 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Allergic asthma is a long-term disorder of the airways resulting from overexpression of immunoglobulin E (IgE) in response to environmental allergens. Patients with poorly controlled asthma are at high risk of exacerbations requiring additional treatment, including hospitalisations. Severe exacerbations are potentially life threatening. Guidelines identify five treatment steps for both adults and children. Omalizumab (Xolair(®)) is a recombinant DNA-derived humanised monoclonal antibody indicated as an add-on therapy in patients aged ≥ 6 years with severe persistent allergic asthma uncontrolled at treatment step 4 or 5. To determine the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of omalizumab, as an add-on therapy to standard care, within its licensed indication, compared with standard therapy alone for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in adults and adolescents aged ≥ 12 years and children aged 6-11 years. Eleven electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and additional sources including regulatory agency reports were searched from inception to October 2011. Additional data sources include: the manufacturer's submission (MS); two previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) submissions; and existing reviews on the safety of omalizumab and oral corticosteroids (OCSs). Systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence for omalizumab were performed. The primary outcome was number of clinically significant (CS) exacerbations. Other outcomes included asthma symptoms, unscheduled health-care use, asthma-related mortality, OCS use and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Because of methodological and clinical heterogeneity between trials, a narrative synthesis was applied. Pragmatic reviews with best evidence syntheses were used to assess adverse events of omalizumab and OCSs. The cost-effectiveness of omalizumab was assessed from the perspective of the UK NHS in the two separate populations: adults and adolescents, and children, using a cohort Markov model. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Results are presented for additional subgroup populations: (1) hospitalised for asthma in the previous year, (2) adults and adolescents on maintenance OCSs and (3) three or more exacerbations in the previous year. Eleven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 observational studies were identified, including four RCTs/subgroups in the adult licensed population and one subgroup in children. A minority of patients were on maintenance OCSs. No evidence comparing omalizumab with OCSs was identified. Omalizumab significantly reduced the incidence of CS exacerbations in both adults and children [adults: INvestigatioN of Omalizumab in seVere Asthma Trial (INNOVATE): rate ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; children IA-05 EUP (the a priori subgroup of patients who met the European Medicines Agency license criteria) 0.66; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.00]. Significant benefits were observed for a range of other outcomes in adults. Subgroup evidence showed benefits in adults on maintenance OCSs. Evidence for an OCS-sparing effect of omalizumab was limited but consistent. Omalizumab is available as 75 mg and 150 mg prefilled syringes at prices of £128.07 and £256.15 respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adults and adolescents is £83,822 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, whereas the ICER for children is £78,009 per QALY gained. The results are similar for the subgroup population of ≥ 3 exacerbations in the previous year, whereas the ICER for the other subgroup populations are lower; £46,431 for the hospitalisation subgroup in adults and adolescents, £44,142 for the hospitalisation subgroup in children and £50,181 for the maintenance OCS subgroup. Omalizumab reduces the incidence of CS exacerbations in adults and children, with benefits on other outcomes in adults. Limited, underpowered subgroup evidence exists that omalizumab reduces exacerbations and OCS requirements in adults on OCSs. Evidence in children is weaker and more uncertain. The ICERs are above conventional NHS thresholds of cost-effectiveness. The key drivers of cost-effectiveness are asthma-related mortality risk and, to a lesser extent, HRQoL improvement and OCS-related adverse effects. An adequately powered double-blind RCT in both adults and children on maintenance OCSs and an individual patient data meta-analysis of existing trials should be considered. A registry of all patients on omalizumab should be established. The study was registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001625. This report was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme on behalf of NICE as project number HTA 10/128/01.
    11/2013; 17(52-52). DOI:10.3310/hta17520

Preview (6 Sources)

Available from