Key result
The self-care management system for heart failure was cost-effective (ICER < 0), increasing QALYs (0.686 vs 0.653) and reducing total healthcare costs compared to non-users.
Why the study?
Having previously reported that a self-care management system for heart failure decreased HF re-hospitalization, the authors sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness of this system.
Does a self-care management system reduce healthcare costs and improve QALYs in patients admitted for heart failure?
Observational (n=569)
No
Does a self-care management system reduce healthcare costs and improve QALYs in patients admitted for heart failure?
A self-care management system for heart failure is highly cost-effective, reducing overall healthcare costs while improving quality-adjusted life-years.
Suggests self-care management systems may offer economic value in heart failure; leaves open.
Background: We recently reported that the self-care management system for heart failure (HF) decreased re-hospitalization for HF. In the present study we estimate the cost-effectiveness of this system. Methods and Results: We retrospectively enrolled 569 consecutive patients who were admitted for HF treatment at Kitano Hospital. In the present analysis, we sought to compare cardiovascular healthcare costs and the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER), expressed as the cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, between patients using the self-care management system (n=153) and those not using the system (n=153) after propensity-score matching. To calculate the QALY, we used the New York Heart Association class and the corresponding scores of quality of life in every 3 months. The healthcare costs of cardiovascular disease were ¥129,747,016 in the user group and ¥156,427,032 in the non-user group, where 24 and 43 patients were hospitalized, respectively. The cost of this new system was ¥50,000 in the user group. The total costs were ¥129,797,016 in the user group and ¥156,427,032 in the non-user group. By using the system, the QALY increased from 0.653 to 0.686. The ICER was below 0 and the system was interpreted as cost-effective. Conclusions: Use of the self-care management system is likely to be a cost-effective treatment for HF with the increase in QALY and the decrease in healthcare costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nakane et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=569). Self-care management system vs. Not using the system was evaluated on Incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) (ICER < 0). The self-care management system for heart failure was cost-effective (ICER < 0), increasing QALYs (0.686 vs 0.653) and reducing total healthcare costs compared to non-users.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: