Why the study?
Telemonitoring reduces hospitalization and mortality in chronic heart failure, but its cost-effectiveness compared to usual care after hospital discharge remained to be analyzed from the US health care provider perspective.
Is telemonitoring-guided management cost-effective compared to usual care in elderly patients with heart failure discharged from the hospital?
Is telemonitoring-guided management cost-effective compared to usual care in elderly patients with heart failure discharged from the hospital?
Telemonitoring-guided management for NYHA class II to IV heart failure patients appears to be a cost-effective strategy compared to usual care alone in the US healthcare setting.
Supports targeted telemonitoring as potentially cost-effective for NYHA II-IV HF; modeling leaves open prospective confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Telemonitoring-guided interventional management reduces the need for hospitalization and mortality of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of usual care with and without telemonitoring-guided management in patients with CHF discharged from the hospital, from the perspective of US health care providers. METHODS: A lifelong Markov model was designed to estimate outcomes of (1) usual care alone for all postdischarge patients with CHF (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class I-IV), (2) usual care and telemonitoring for all postdischarge patients with CHF, (3) usual care for all postdischarge patients with CHF and telemonitoring for patients with NYHA class III to IV, and (4) usual care for all postdischarge patients with CHF plus telemonitoring for patients with NYHA class II to IV. Model inputs were derived from the literature and public data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of model. The primary outcomes were total direct medical cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the base case analysis, universal telemonitoring group gained the highest QALYs (6.2967 QALYs), followed by the telemonitoring for NYHA class II to IV group (6.2960 QALYs), the telemonitoring for NYHA class III to IV group (6.2450 QALYs), and the universal usual care group (6.1530 QALYs). ICERs of the telemonitoring for NYHA class III to IV group (US $35,393 per QALY) and the telemonitoring for NYHA class II to IV group (US $38,261 per QALY) were lower than the ICER of the universal telemonitoring group (US $100,458 per QALY). One-way sensitivity analysis identified five critical parameters: odds ratio of hospitalization for telemonitoring versus usual care, hazard ratio of all-cause mortality for telemonitoring versus usual care, CHF hospitalization cost and monthly outpatient costs for NYHA class I, and CHF hospitalization cost for NYHA class II. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, probabilities of the universal telemonitoring, telemonitoring for NYHA class II to IV, telemonitoring for NYHA class III to IV, and universal usual care groups to be accepted as cost-effective at US $50,000 per QALY were 2.76%, 76.31%, 18.6%, and 2.33%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Usual care for all discharged patients with CHF plus telemonitoring-guided management for NYHA class II to IV patients appears to be the preferred cost-effective strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: