Key result
A nurse-led home-based intervention for secondary prevention in privately insured patients with chronic heart disease was not cost-effective overall, yielding an estimated within-trial incremental net monetary benefit of -$3,116.
Why the study?
Does a nurse-led home-based intervention improve cost-effectiveness compared to usual care in cardiac patients with private health insurance?
RCT (n=602)
Randomized
Yes
Does a nurse-led home-based intervention improve cost-effectiveness compared to usual care in cardiac patients with private health insurance?
Effect estimate: INMB -$3,116 (95% CI -11,145, $4,914)
A nurse-led home-based intervention for secondary prevention in Australian private healthcare cardiac patients is generally not cost-effective, though it may reduce costs in older males.
Not cost-effective overall for secondary prevention; leaves open potential savings in older males for targeted evaluation.
The aim of this study is to consider the cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led, home-based intervention (HBI) in cardiac patients with private health insurance compared to usual post-discharge care. A within trial analysis of the Young @ Heart multicentre, randomized controlled trial along with a micro-simulation decision analytical model was conducted to estimate the incremental costs and quality adjusted life years associated with the home based intervention compared to usual care. For the micro-simulation model, future costs, from the perspective of the funder, and effects are estimated over a twenty-year time horizon. An Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio, along with Incremental Net Monetary Benefit, is evaluated using a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 per quality adjusted life year. Sub-group analyses are conducted for men and women across three age groups separately. Costs and benefits that arise in the future are discounted at five percent per annum. Overall, home based intervention for secondary prevention in patients with chronic heart disease identified in the Australian private health care sector is not cost-effective. The estimated within trial incremental net monetary benefit is -$3,116 [95% CI: -11,145, $4,914]; indicating that the costs outweigh the benefits. However, for males and in particular males aged 75 years and above, home based intervention indicated a potential to reduce health care costs when compared to usual care (within trial: -$10,416 [95% CI: -$26,745, $5,913]; modelled analysis: -$1,980 [95% CI: -$22,843, $14,863]). This work provides a crucial impetus for future research to understand for whom disease management programs are likely to benefit most.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Byrnes et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in Chronic heart disease (n=602). Nurse-led home-based intervention (HBI) vs. Usual post-discharge care was evaluated on Incremental Net Monetary Benefit (INMB) (INMB -$3,116, 95% CI -11,145, $4,914). A nurse-led home-based intervention for secondary prevention in privately insured patients with chronic heart disease was not cost-effective overall, yielding an estimated within-trial incremental net monetary benefit of -$3,116.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: