Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Telemonitoring after discharge from hospital with heart failure: cost-effectiveness modelling of alternative service designs
  1. Praveen Thokala1,
  2. Hassan Baalbaki1,
  3. Alan Brennan1,
  4. Abdullah Pandor1,
  5. John W Stevens1,
  6. Tim Gomersall1,
  7. Jenny Wang1,
  8. Ameet Bakhai2,
  9. Abdallah Al-Mohammad3,
  10. John Cleland4,
  11. Martin R Cowie5,
  12. Ruth Wong1
  1. 1ScHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  2. 2Department of Cardiology, Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust, Enfield, UK
  3. 3South Yorkshire Cardiothoracic Centre, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
  4. 4Department of Cardiology, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK
  5. 5National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London (Royal Brompton Hospital), London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Praveen Thokala; p.thokala{at}sheffield.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To estimate the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring strategies versus usual care for adults recently discharged after a heart failure (HF) exacerbation.

Design Decision analysis modelling of cost-effectiveness using secondary data sources.

Setting Acute hospitals in the UK.

Patients Patients recently discharged (within 28 days) after a HF exacerbation.

Interventions Structured telephone support (STS) via human to machine (STS HM) interface, (2) STS via human to human (STS HH) contact and (3) home telemonitoring (TM), compared with (4) usual care.

Main outcome measures The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by each strategy compared to the next most effective alternative and the probability of each strategy being cost-effective at varying willingness to pay per QALY gained.

Results TM was the most cost-effective strategy in the scenario using these base case costs. Compared with usual care, TM had an estimated incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £11 873/QALY, whereas STS HH had an ICER of £228 035/QALY against TM. STS HM was dominated by usual care. Threshold analysis suggested that the monthly cost of TM has to be higher than £390 to have an ICER greater than £20 000/QALY against STS HH. Scenario analyses performed using higher costs of usual care, higher costs of STS HH and lower costs of TM do not substantially change the conclusions.

Conclusions Cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that TM was an optimal strategy in most scenarios, but there is considerable uncertainty in relation to clear descriptions of the interventions and robust estimation of costs.

  • HEALTH ECONOMICS
  • STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.