Why the study?
Despite clinical efficacy of digital therapeutics reported in the HERB-DH1 trial, cost-effectiveness assessments evaluating the impact of prescription digital therapeutics for hypertension were lacking.
Does prescription digital therapeutics added to treatment as usual improve cost-effectiveness in patients with essential hypertension?
Does prescription digital therapeutics added to treatment as usual improve cost-effectiveness in patients with essential hypertension?
Effect estimate: ICER ¥1,199,880/QALY
Absolute Event Rate: 18.778% vs 18.686%
Prescription digital therapeutics added to standard lifestyle modification is highly cost-effective for managing essential hypertension over a lifetime horizon.
Supports addition of prescription digital therapeutics to usual care in essential hypertension; extends economic evidence with 87.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at ¥5 million/QALY.
Background Hypertension increases the risk of cardiovascular and other diseases. Lifestyle modification is a significant component of nonpharmacological treatments for hypertension. We previously reported the clinical efficacy of digital therapeutics (DTx) in the HERB-DH1 trial. However, there is still a lack of cost-effectiveness assessments evaluating the impact of prescription DTx. This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of using prescription DTx in treating hypertension. Methods We developed a monthly cycle Markov model and conducted Monte Carlo simulations using the HERB-DH1 trial data to investigate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the cost of DTx for hypertension plus guideline-based lifestyle modification consultation treatment as usual (TAU), comparing DTx+TAU and TAU-only groups with a lifetime horizon. The model inputs were obtained from the HERB-DH1 trial, published or publicly available data, and expert assumptions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY was used as the benchmark for cost-effectiveness. We performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) using the Monte Carlo simulation with 2 million sets. Results The DTx+TAU strategy produced 18.778 QALY and was associated with ¥3,924,075 ($34,122) expected costs, compared with 18.686 QALY and ¥3,813,358 ($33,160) generated by the TAU-only strategy over a lifetime horizon, resulting in an ICER of ¥1,199,880 ($10,434)/QALY gained for DTx+TAU. The monthly cost and attrition rate of DTx for hypertension have a significant impact on ICERs. In the PSA, the probability of the DTx arm being a cost-effective option was 87.8% at a threshold value of ¥5 million ($43,478)/QALY gained. Conclusions The DTx+TAU strategy was more cost-effective than the TAU-only strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nomura et al. (2022) studied Essential hypertension (n=390). Digital therapeutics (HERB Mobile system) plus treatment as usual (DTx+TAU) vs. Treatment as usual (TAU) only was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained (ICER ¥1,199,880/QALY). The digital therapeutics plus treatment as usual strategy was cost-effective for essential hypertension, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥1,199,880 per QALY gained.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: