Key result
The Do CHANGE 2 electronic health intervention was cost-effective only in Spain (incremental cost -€2514.90), while it was more costly in the Netherlands (€1373.59) and Taiwan (€1062.54).
Why the study?
Cardiovascular disease prevention requires committed self-care approaches like electronic health techniques, but the financial consequences of implementing the Do CHANGE 2 intervention were not well understood.
Is the Do CHANGE 2 electronic health intervention cost-effective compared to treatment as usual in patients with cardiovascular disease?
RCT
Yes
Is the Do CHANGE 2 electronic health intervention cost-effective compared to treatment as usual in patients with cardiovascular disease?
The cost-effectiveness of the Do CHANGE 2 electronic health intervention for cardiovascular disease varies significantly by country, being cost-saving only in Spain.
Country-specific cost-effectiveness warrants tailored eHealth adoption in CVD; extends prior analyses by showing geographic variation in incremental costs.
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. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03178305; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03178305
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piera-Jiménez et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Cardiovascular disease. Do CHANGE 2 electronic health intervention vs. Treatment as usual was evaluated on Cost-effectiveness (incremental cost and quality-adjusted life-year gains). The Do CHANGE 2 electronic health intervention was cost-effective only in Spain (incremental cost -€2514.90), while it was more costly in the Netherlands (€1373.59) and Taiwan (€1062.54).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: