Cost-effectiveness of a telemonitoring programme in patients with cardiovascular diseases compared with standard of care

Abstract

ObjectivesThe main aim of this work was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of an integrated care concept (NICC) that combines telemonitoring with the support of a care centre in addition to guideline therapy for patients. Secondary aims were to compare health utility and health-related quality of life (QoL) between NICC and standard of care (SoC).MethodsThe randomised controlled CardioCare MV Trial compared NICC and SoC in patients from Mecklenburg-West Pomerania (Germany) with atrial fibrillation, heart failure or treatment-resistant hypertension. QoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L at baseline, 6 months and 1 year follow-up. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), EQ5D utility scores, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Scores and VAS adjusted life years (VAS-AL) were calculated. Cost data were obtained from health insurance companies, and the payer perspective was taken in health economic analyses. Quantile regression was used with adjustments for stratification variables.ResultsThe net benefit of NICC (QALY) was 0.031 (95% CI 0.012 to 0.050; p=0.001) in this trial involving 957 patients. EQ5D Index values, VAS-ALs and VAS were larger for NICC compared with SoC at 1 year follow-up (all p≤0.004). Direct cost per patient and year were €323 (CI €157 to €489) lower in the NICC group. When 2000 patients are served by the care centre, NICC is cost-effective if one is willing to pay €10 652 per QALY per year.ConclusionNICC was associated with higher QoL and health utility. The programme is cost-effective if one is willing to pay approximately €11 000 per QALY per year.