Cargando…
The Ambulatory Medical Assistance (AMA) programme during active‐phase treatment in patients with haematological malignancies: A cost‐effectiveness analysis
CONTEXT: The need for patient navigator is growing, and there is a lack of cost evaluation, especially during survivorship. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of an Ambulatory Medical Assistance (AMA) programme in patients with haematological malignancies (H...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9786720/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36168105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13709 |
Sumario: | CONTEXT: The need for patient navigator is growing, and there is a lack of cost evaluation, especially during survivorship. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of an Ambulatory Medical Assistance (AMA) programme in patients with haematological malignancies (HM). DESIGN: A cost‐effectiveness analysis of the AMA programme was performed compared to a simulated control arm. SETTING: An interventional, single‐arm and prospective study was conducted in a French reference haematology–oncology centre between 2016 and 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients were enrolled with histologically documented malignant haematology, during their active therapy phase, and treated either by intravenous chemotherapy or oral therapy. METHODS: An extrapolation of the effectiveness was derived from a similar nurse monitoring programme (CAPRI study). Cost effectiveness of the programme was evaluated through adverse events of Grade 3 or 4 avoided in different populations. RESULTS: Included patient (n = 797) from the AMA programme were followed during 125 days (IQR: 0–181), and adverse events (Grade 3/4) were observed in 10.1% of patients versus 13.4% in the simulated control arm. The overall cost of AE avoided was estimated to €81,113, leading to an ICER of €864. CONCLUSION: The AMA programme was shown to be cost‐effective compared to a simulated control arm with no intervention. |
---|