Evaluation of a Heart Failure Telemonitoring Program Through a Microsimulation Model: Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a major public health issue in Canada that is associated with high prevalence, morbidity, and mortality rates and high financial and social burdens. Telemonitoring (TM) has been shown to improve all-cause mortality and hospitalization rates in patients with HF. The Medly program is a TM intervention integrated as standard of care at a large Canadian academic hospital for ambulatory patients with HF that has been found to improve patient outcomes. However, the cost-effectiveness of the Medly program is yet to be determined. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct a cost-utility analysis of the Medly program compared with the standard of care for HF in Ontario, Canada, from the perspective of the public health care payer. METHODS: Using a microsimulation model, individual patient data were simulated over a 25-year time horizon to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between the Medly program and standard care for patients with HF treated in the ambulatory care setting. Data were sourced from a Medly Program Evaluation study and literature to inform model parameters, such as Medly's effectiveness in reducing mortality and hospitalizations, health care and intervention costs, and model transition probabilities. Scenario analyses were conducted in relation to HF severity and TM deployment models. One-way deterministic effectiveness analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the impact on the results of uncertainty in model parameters. RESULTS: The Medly program was associated with an average total cost of Can 102, 508 (US 77, 626) per patient and total QALYs of 5. 51 per patient compared with the average cost of Can 97, 497 (US 73, 831) and QALYs of 4. 95 per patient in the Standard Care Group. This led to an incremental cost of Can 5011 (US 3794) and incremental QALY of 0. 566, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Can 8850 (US 6701) /QALY. Cost-effectiveness improved in relation to patients with advanced HF and with deployment models in which patients used their own equipment. Baseline and alternative scenarios consistently showed probabilities of cost-effectiveness greater than 85% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of Can 50, 000 (US 37, 718). Although the results showed some sensitivity to assumptions about effectiveness parameters, the intervention was found to remain cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The Medly program for patients with HF is cost-effective compared with standard care using commonly reported willingness-to-pay thresholds. This study provides evidence for decision makers on the use of TM for HF, supports the use of a nurse-led model of TM that embeds clinically validated algorithms, and informs the use of economic modeling for future evaluations of early-stage health informatics technology.