Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Is telehealthcare for heart failure patients cost-effective? An economic evaluation alongside the Danish TeleCare North heart failure trial

2020; BMJ; Volume: 10; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031670

2044-6055

Anne Sig Vestergaard, Louise Hansen, Sabrina Storgaard Sørensen, Morten Berg Jensen, Lars Holger Ehlers,

Cardiac Health and Mental Health

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare in heart failure patients as add-on to usual care.A cost-utility analysis was conducted from a public payer perspective alongside the randomised controlled TeleCare North trial.The North Denmark Region, Denmark.The study included 274 heart failure patients with self-reported New York Heart Association class II-IV.Patients in the intervention group were provided with a Telekit consisting of a tablet, a digital blood pressure monitor, and a scale and were instructed to perform measurements one to two times a week. The responsibility of the education, instructions and monitoring of the heart failure (HF) patients was placed on municipality nurses trained in HF and telemonitoring. Both groups received usual care.Cost-effectiveness was reported as incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). A micro-costing approach was applied to evaluate the derived savings in the first year in the public health sector. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained were estimated using the EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-Levels questionnaire at baseline and at a 1-year follow-up.Data for 274 patients were included in the main analysis. The telehealthcare solution provided a positive incremental NMB of £5164. The 1-year adjusted QALY difference between the telehealthcare solution and the usual care group was 0.0034 (95% CI: -0.0711 to 0.0780). The adjusted difference in costs was -£5096 (95% CI: -8736 to -1456) corresponding to a reduction in total healthcare costs by 35%. All sensitivity analyses showed the main results were robust.The TeleCare North solution for monitoring HF was highly cost-effective. There were significant cost savings on hospitalisations, primary care contacts and total costs.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02860013.