Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of the COPD Patient Management European Trial home-based disease management program

PURPOSE: Efficient management of COPD represents an international challenge. Effective management strategies within the means of limited health care budgets are urgently required. This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a home-based disease management (DM) intervention vs usual man...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bourbeau, Jean, Granados, Denis, Roze, Stéphane, Durand-Zaleski, Isabelle, Casan, Pere, Köhler, Dieter, Tognella, Silvia, Viejo, Jose Luis, Dal Negro, Roberto W, Kessler, Romain
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6421871/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30936689
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S173057
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Efficient management of COPD represents an international challenge. Effective management strategies within the means of limited health care budgets are urgently required. This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a home-based disease management (DM) intervention vs usual management (UM) in patients from the COPD Patient Management European Trial (COMET). METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated in 319 intention-to-treat patients over 12 months in COMET. The analysis captured unplanned all-cause hospitalization days, mortality, and quality-adjusted life expectancy. Costs were evaluated from a National Health Service perspective for France, Germany, and Spain, and in a pooled analysis, and were expressed in 2015 Euros (EUR). Quality of life was assessed using the 15D health-related quality-of-life instrument and mapped to utility scores. RESULTS: Home-based DM was associated with improved mortality and quality-adjusted life expectancy. DM and UM were associated with equivalent direct costs (DM reduced costs by EUR −37 per patient per year) in the pooled analysis. DM was associated with lower costs in France (EUR −806 per patient per year) and Spain (EUR −51 per patient per year), but higher costs in Germany (EUR 391 per patient per year). Evaluation of cost per death avoided and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained showed that DM was dominant (more QALYs and cost saving) in France and Spain, and cost-effective in Germany vs UM. Nonparametric bootstrapping analysis, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 20,000 per QALY gained, indicated that the probability of home-based DM being cost-effective vs UM was 87.7% in France, 81.5% in Spain, and 75.9% in Germany. CONCLUSION: Home-based DM improved clinical outcomes at equivalent cost vs UM in France and Spain, and in the pooled analysis. DM was cost-effective in Germany with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 2,541 per QALY gained. The COMET home-based DM intervention could represent an attractive alternative to UM for European health care payers.