Key result
The Do CHANGE 2 electronic health intervention was cost-effective only in Spain, where it saved €18,769.05 per QALY, but was not cost-effective compared to usual care in the Netherlands or Taiwan.
Why the study?
Although electronic health techniques focused on self-care are suggested to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, evidence regarding the financial consequences of implementing such interventions was needed.
Does the Do CHANGE 2 electronic health intervention improve cost-effectiveness and quality of life compared to treatment as usual in patients with cardiovascular disease?
RCT (n=238)
Randomized
Yes
Does the Do CHANGE 2 electronic health intervention improve cost-effectiveness and quality of life compared to treatment as usual in patients with cardiovascular disease?
The cost-effectiveness of an ICT-based behavioral intervention for cardiovascular disease varied significantly by country, proving cost-saving only in Spain.
Cost-effectiveness of Do CHANGE 2 is country-specific; extends evidence that eHealth interventions for cardiovascular disease require local economic evaluation before adoption.
BACKGROUND: During the last few decades, preventing the development of cardiovascular disease has become a mainstay for reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. It has been suggested that interventions should focus more on committed approaches of self-care, such as electronic health techniques. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide evidence to understand the financial consequences of implementing the "Do Cardiac Health: Advanced New Generation Ecosystem" (Do CHANGE 2) intervention, which was evaluated in a multisite randomized controlled trial to change the health behavior of patients with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis of the Do CHANGE 2 intervention was performed with the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing tool, based on a Markov model of five health states. The following two types of costs were considered for both study groups: (1) health care costs (ie, costs associated with the time spent by health care professionals on service provision, including consultations, and associated unplanned hospitalizations, etc) and (2) societal costs (ie, costs attributed to the time spent by patients and informal caregivers on care activities). RESULTS: The Do CHANGE 2 intervention was less costly in Spain (incremental cost was -€2514.90) and more costly in the Netherlands and Taiwan (incremental costs were €1373.59 and €1062.54, respectively). Compared with treatment as usual, the effectiveness of the Do CHANGE 2 program in terms of an increase in quality-adjusted life-year gains was slightly higher in the Netherlands and lower in Spain and Taiwan. CONCLUSIONS: In general, we found that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio strongly varied depending on the country where the intervention was applied. The Do CHANGE 2 intervention showed a positive cost-effectiveness ratio only when implemented in Spain, indicating that it saved financial costs in relation to the effect of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03178305; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03178305.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piera-Jiménez et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Cardiovascular disease (hypertension, coronary artery disease, or heart failure) (n=238). Do CHANGE 2 program vs. Treatment as usual was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The Do CHANGE 2 electronic health intervention was cost-effective only in Spain, where it saved €18,769.05 per QALY, but was not cost-effective compared to usual care in the Netherlands or Taiwan.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: