BACKGROUND
Heart failure (HF) is a major public health issue in Canada that is associated with high prevalence, morbidity, and mortality rates and high financial and social burdens. Telemonitoring (TM) has been shown to improve all-cause mortality and hospitalization rates in patients with HF. The <i>Medly</i> program is a TM intervention integrated as standard of care at a large Canadian academic hospital for ambulatory patients with HF that has been found to improve patient outcomes. However, the cost-effectiveness of the <i>Medly</i> program is yet to be determined.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to conduct a cost-utility analysis of the <i>Medly</i> program compared with the standard of care for HF in Ontario, Canada, from the perspective of the public health care payer.
METHODS
Using a microsimulation model, individual patient data were simulated over a 25-year time horizon to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between the <i>Medly</i> program and standard care for patients with HF treated in the ambulatory care setting. Data were sourced from a <i>Medly</i> Program Evaluation study and literature to inform model parameters, such as <i>Medly</i>’s effectiveness in reducing mortality and hospitalizations, health care and intervention costs, and model transition probabilities. Scenario analyses were conducted in relation to HF severity and TM deployment models. One-way deterministic effectiveness analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the impact on the results of uncertainty in model parameters.
RESULTS
The <i>Medly</i> program was associated with an average total cost of Can $102,508 (US $77,626) per patient and total QALYs of 5.51 per patient compared with the average cost of Can $97,497 (US $73,831) and QALYs of 4.95 per patient in the Standard Care Group. This led to an incremental cost of Can $5011 (US $3794) and incremental QALY of 0.566, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Can $8850 (US $6701)/QALY. Cost-effectiveness improved in relation to patients with advanced HF and with deployment models in which patients used their own equipment. Baseline and alternative scenarios consistently showed probabilities of cost-effectiveness greater than 85% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of Can $50,000 (US $37,718). Although the results showed some sensitivity to assumptions about effectiveness parameters, the intervention was found to remain cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS
The <i>Medly</i> program for patients with HF is cost-effective compared with standard care using commonly reported willingness-to-pay thresholds. This study provides evidence for decision makers on the use of TM for HF, supports the use of a nurse-led model of TM that embeds clinically validated algorithms, and informs the use of economic modeling for future evaluations of early-stage health informatics technology.