Telemonitoring Versus Usual Care for Elderly Patients With Heart Failure Discharged From the Hospital in the United States: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

• Published in: JMIR mHealth and uHealth Vol. 8; no. 7; p. e17846
• Main Authors: Jiang, Xinchan, Yao, Jiaqi, You, Joyce HS
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Canada JMIR Publications 06.07.2020
• Subjects: Aftercare; Aged; Blood pressure; Classification; Clinical trials; Cost analysis; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Heart failure; Heart Failure - therapy; Heart rate; Hospitalization; Hospitals; Humans; Intervention; Markov chains; Mortality; Original Paper; Patient Discharge - economics; Patients; Probability; Ratios; Sensitivity analysis; Telemedicine; Telemedicine - economics; United States; United States; New York; United States > US; heart failure; telemedicine; cost; hospitalization; cost-effectiveness analysis; quality-adjusted life year
• DOI: 10.2196/17846
• ISSN: 2291-5222

Telemonitoring-guided interventional management reduces the need for hospitalization and mortality of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of usual care with and without telemonitoring-guided management in patients with CHF discharged from the hospital, from the perspective of US health care providers. A lifelong Markov model was designed to estimate outcomes of (1) usual care alone for all postdischarge patients with CHF (New York Heart Association [NYHA] class I-IV), (2) usual care and telemonitoring for all postdischarge patients with CHF, (3) usual care for all postdischarge patients with CHF and telemonitoring for patients with NYHA class III to IV, and (4) usual care for all postdischarge patients with CHF plus telemonitoring for patients with NYHA class II to IV. Model inputs were derived from the literature and public data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of model. The primary outcomes were total direct medical cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In the base case analysis, universal telemonitoring group gained the highest QALYs (6.2967 QALYs), followed by the telemonitoring for NYHA class II to IV group (6.2960 QALYs), the telemonitoring for NYHA class III to IV group (6.2450 QALYs), and the universal usual care group (6.1530 QALYs). ICERs of the telemonitoring for NYHA class III to IV group (US $35,393 per QALY) and the telemonitoring for NYHA class II to IV group (US $38,261 per QALY) were lower than the ICER of the universal telemonitoring group (US $100,458 per QALY). One-way sensitivity analysis identified five critical parameters: odds ratio of hospitalization for telemonitoring versus usual care, hazard ratio of all-cause mortality for telemonitoring versus usual care, CHF hospitalization cost and monthly outpatient costs for NYHA class I, and CHF hospitalization cost for NYHA class II. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, probabilities of the universal telemonitoring, telemonitoring for NYHA class II to IV, telemonitoring for NYHA class III to IV, and universal usual care groups to be accepted as cost-effective at US $50,000 per QALY were 2.76%, 76.31%, 18.6%, and 2.33%, respectively. Usual care for all discharged patients with CHF plus telemonitoring-guided management for NYHA class II to IV patients appears to be the preferred cost-effective strategy.