A remote person-centred care add-on intervention for COPD and/or CHF was dominant compared with usual care, yielding 0.0469 additional quality-adjusted life years and saving SEK 68,533.
RCT (n=224)
randomly allocated
Yes
Does a remote person-centred care add-on intervention improve cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure and/or COPD?
A remote person-centred care intervention using a digital platform and telephone support is cost-effective, reducing healthcare costs while improving quality of life in patients with CHF and/or COPD.
Effect estimate: Incremental effects 0.0469 QALYs, incremental costs SEK -68 533
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the healthcare costs and effects of a remote person-centred care (PCC) add-on intervention compared with usual care for people with chronic heart failure (CHF) and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary Disease (COPD) from a societal perspective. DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based on the results from a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The study was conducted from August 2017 until June 2021 within nine primary care centres across Western Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: Participants in the study had a diagnosis of COPD (J43.0, J44.0-J44.9) and/or CHF (I50.0-I50.9).224 patients were randomly allocated to the study groups. After two withdrawals, the final intention-to-treat analysis included 110 participants in the intervention group and 112 in the control group. INTERVENTIONS: Both the intervention and control group received usual care through their primary care centres. In addition, the intervention group participated in a remote PCC add-on intervention consisting of a digital platform and structured telephone support. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using direct healthcare costs, productivity loss and prescription drug costs, compared with health effects measured using the EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) over a 2-year time horizon. RESULTS: The intervention group had lower healthcare utilisation in inpatient care, specialised outpatient care and reduced productivity loss. The CEA showed incremental effects of 0.0469 quality-adjusted life years and incremental costs of SEK -68 533 (Swedish crowns). The PCC alternative was both more effective and resulted in lower healthcare costs compared with usual care, that is, PCC was dominant. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this CEA demonstrated that a remote PCC add-on intervention for people with COPD and/or CHF had lower healthcare costs and higher health-related quality of life compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03183817 ClinicalTrials.gov.
Harvey et al. (Wed,) conducted a rct in Chronic heart failure (CHF) and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (n=224). Remote person-centred care (PCC) add-on intervention (digital platform and structured telephone support) vs. Usual care was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using direct healthcare costs, productivity loss and prescription drug costs, compared with health effects measured using the EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) (Incremental effects 0.0469 QALYs, incremental costs SEK -68 533). A remote person-centred care add-on intervention for COPD and/or CHF was dominant compared with usual care, yielding 0.0469 additional quality-adjusted life years and saving SEK 68,533.