Search

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of telemonitoring with standard monitoring for patients with diabetic foot ulcers. The economic evaluation was nested within a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. A total of 374 patients were randomised to either telemonitoring or standard monitoring. Telemonitoring consisted of two tele-consultations in the patient's own home and one consultation at the outpatient clinic; standard monitoring consisted of three outpatient clinic consultations. Total healthcare costs were estimated over a 6-month period at individual patient level, from a healthcare sector perspective. The bootstrap method was used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Telemonitoring costs were found to be €2039 less per patient compared to standard monitoring; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Amputation rate was similar in the two groups. In conclusion, a telemonitoring service in this form had similar costs and effects as standard monitoring.

Objectives: To examine the heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analyses of patient-tailored complex interventions., Methods: Latent class analysis (LCA) was performed on data from a randomized controlled trial evaluating a patient-tailored case management strategy for patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). LCA was conducted on detailed process variables representing service variation in the intervention group. Features of the identified latent classes were compared for consistency with baseline demographic, clinical, and economic characteristics for each class. Classes for the control group, corresponding to the identified latent classes for the intervention group, were identified using multinomial logistic regression. Cost-utility analyses were then conducted at the class level, and uncertainty surrounding the point estimates was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis., Results: The LCA identified three distinct classes: the psychologically care class, the extensive COPD care class, and the limited COPD care class. Patient baseline characteristics were in line with the features identified in the LCA. Evaluation of cost-effectiveness revealed highly disparate results, and case management for only the extensive COPD care class appeared cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £26,986 per quality-adjusted life-year gained using the threshold value set by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence., Conclusions: Findings indicate that researchers evaluating patient-tailored complex interventions need to address both supply-side variation and demand-side heterogeneity to link findings with outcome. The article specifically proposes the use of LCA because it is believed to have the potential to enable more appropriate targeting of complex care strategies., (Copyright © 2018 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Hospitals increasingly make decisions regarding the early development of and investment in technologies, but a formal evaluation model for assisting hospitals early on in assessing the potential of innovative medical technologies is lacking. This article provides an overview of models for early assessment in different health organisations and discusses which models hold most promise for hospital decision makers., Methods: A scoping review of published studies between 1996 and 2015 was performed using nine databases. The following information was collected: decision context, decision problem, and a description of the early assessment model., Results: 2362 articles were identified and 12 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. An additional 12 studies were identified and included in the review by searching reference lists. The majority of the 24 early assessment studies were variants of traditional cost-effectiveness analysis. Around one fourth of the studies presented an evaluation model with a broader focus than cost-effectiveness. Uncertainty was mostly handled by simple sensitivity or scenario analysis., Discussion and Conclusions: This review shows that evaluation models using known methods assessing cost-effectiveness are most prevalent in early assessment, but seems ill-suited for early assessment in hospitals. Four models provided some usable elements for the development of a hospital-based model., (Crown Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To analyse the cost effectiveness of community-based case management for patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)., Methods: The study took place in the third largest municipality in Denmark and was conducted as a randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. A total of 150 patients with COPD were randomised into two groups receiving usual care and case management in addition to usual care. Case management included among other things self care proficiency, medicine compliance, and care coordination. Outcome measure for the analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) from the perspective of the healthcare sector. Costs were valued in British Pounds (£) at price level 2016. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted in order to assess uncertainty of the ICER estimate., Results: The intervention resulted in a QALY improvement of 0.0146 (95% CI -0.0216; 0.0585), and a cost increase of £494 (95% CI -1778; 2766) per patient. No statistically significant difference was observed either in costs or effects. The ICER was £33,865 per QALY gained. Scenario analyses confirmed the robustness of the result and revealed slightly lower ICERs of £28,100-£31,340 per QALY., Conclusions: Analysis revealed that case management led to a positive incremental QALY, but were more costly than usual care. The highly uncertain ICER somewhat exceeds for instance the threshold value used by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). No formally established Danish threshold value exists. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01512836.

In connection with the publication of a clinical practice guideline on the management of low back pain (LBP) in general practice in Denmark, a cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted. In this trial, a multifaceted guideline implementation strategy to improve general practitioners' treatment of patients with LBP was compared with a usual implementation strategy. The aim was to determine whether the multifaceted strategy was cost effective, as compared with the usual implementation strategy. The economic evaluation was conducted as a cost-utility analysis where cost collected from a societal perspective and quality-adjusted life years were used as outcome measures. The analysis was conducted as a within-trial analysis with a 12-month time horizon consistent with the follow-up period of the clinical trial. To adjust for a priori selected covariates, generalised linear models with a gamma family were used to estimate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years. Furthermore, both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results showed that costs associated with primary health care were higher, whereas secondary health care costs were lower for the intervention group when compared with the control group. When adjusting for covariates, the intervention was less costly, and there was no significant difference in effect between the 2 groups. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were sensitive to uncertainty. In conclusion, the multifaceted implementation strategy was cost saving when compared with the usual strategy for implementing LBP clinical practice guidelines in general practice. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in effect, and the estimate was sensitive to uncertainty.

Great confusion is involved concerning health economics analyses. For example: What is the difference between cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses? Is there a difference between the so-called cost-of-illness analyses? What is a financial analysis? These questions are discussed on the basis of the underlying economic theory and the use of the analyses. In order to avoid terminological confusion, the English terminology is retained. Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses are social economical analyses because they are all-embracing as regards what is understood by costs and profits based on the so-called welfare economy where cost-benefit analyses are concerned. The theoretical basis for cost-effectiveness analysis is slightly more obscure. Where both forms of analysis are concerned, no concern is shown for who obtains the profits or who pays the costs, i.e. a cross-sectional perspective. The financial analysis contrasts with this because attention is focussed directly on expenditures and revenues and the accounts responsible for the expenses and which obtain the revenues. The cost-of-illness analysis is a confusing but frequently employed and quoted form of analysis where an attempt is made to calculate the costs of a certain disease or injurious agent (alcohol, tobacco, accidents) for the various parties involved. These are subdivided into direct costs, roughly corresponding to the costs of treatment and indirect costs which include e.g. loss of income resulting from the illness, disability or death. This form of analysis is strongly warned against as the results of analysis may easily be misused frequently with absurd implications.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an established economical form of analysis which, in public services, replaces the marketing mechanism. The questions which CEA attempts to answer are: Which form of medical technology is most economically effective where a given disease is concerned. Where and how must the medical technology be commenced. Which group of patients can benefit from a given form of medical technology? It is a prerequisite for employment of CEA that there is unanimity in advance about the object of an activity, eg. a given treatment or procedure in the diagnostic investigation. Several strategies may be employed to ensure that the aim is sufficiently wide: the limits may be explicit; goals may be established which compare years of life with quality of life, or several goals may be present in the goal. The predominant economical expression in CEA is alternative costs which must be sacrificed in order to carry out a certain activity. In order to estimate what is obtained by carrying out an activity, an expression of effect is essential. These are most frequently both of quantitative and also of qualitative character and may be subdivided into three categories: Alterations in the employment of resources. Alterations in production by society. Alterations in the conditions of health of the individual. Doctors are important decisions-makers and distributors of resources in the health services. The questions which a CEA can provide graduated answers to, are the questions that the doctor works with in clinical practice.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The practical and theoretical bases of cost-benefit analysis are reviewed systematically with particular emphasis on how an analysis can be carried out in practice. A Danish analysis about introduction of vaccination for mumps, measles and German measles is included as a common example. The great significance of elucidating the socio-economical questions to be answered before commencing an analysis is emphasized. It is therefore recommended that, among other things, as a side-effect of the actual cost-benefit analysis, a cash-analysis and a budget analysis should be carried out to identify the parties involved in the immediate expenses and incomes. This is particularly important in the cases where the same parties have a central position in the decision-making processes concerned in the project. In addition, costs and benefits are frequently distributed differently in time in different ways: Short-term expenses and long-term benefits. In connection with decision-making, this may also involve problems and should, therefore, be elucidated in detail. Similarly, the importance of including many alternatives in the analysis is emphasized and illustrated. In conclusion, it is demonstrated how well the theoretical principles have been followed, the employment and the process which led to the concrete analysis.