BACKGROUND: Randomized, controlled trials have shown that nurse-led disease management for patients with heart failure can reduce hospitalizations. Less is known about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led disease management intervention over 12 months, implemented in a randomized, controlled effectiveness trial. DESIGN:Cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a randomized trial. DATA SOURCES: Medical costs from administrative records, and self-reported quality of life and nonmedical costs from patient surveys. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with systolic dysfunction recruited from ambulatory clinics in Harlem, New York. TIME HORIZON: 12 months. PERSPECTIVE: Societal and payer. INTERVENTION: 12-month program that involved 1 face-to-face encounter with a nurse and regular telephone follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of life as measured by the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 and EuroQol-5D and cost-effectiveness as measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Costs and quality of life were higher in the nurse-managed group than the usual care group. The ICERs over 12 months were $17,543 per EuroQol-5D-based quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $15,169 per Health Utilities Index Mark 3-based QALY (in 2001 U.S. dollars). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: From a payer perspective, the ICER ranged from $3673 to $4495 per QALY. Applying national prices in place of New York City prices yielded a societal ICER of $13,460 to $15,556 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves suggest that the intervention was most likely cost-effective for patients with less severe (New York Heart Association classes I to II) heart failure. LIMITATION: The trial was conducted in an ethnically diverse, inner-city neighborhood; thus, results may not be generalizable to other communities. CONCLUSION: Over 12 months, the nurse-led disease management program was a reasonably cost-effective way to reduce the burden of heart failure in this community.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Randomized, controlled trials have shown that nurse-led disease management for patients with heart failure can reduce hospitalizations. Less is known about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led disease management intervention over 12 months, implemented in a randomized, controlled effectiveness trial. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a randomized trial. DATA SOURCES: Medical costs from administrative records, and self-reported quality of life and nonmedical costs from patient surveys. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with systolic dysfunction recruited from ambulatory clinics in Harlem, New York. TIME HORIZON: 12 months. PERSPECTIVE: Societal and payer. INTERVENTION: 12-month program that involved 1 face-to-face encounter with a nurse and regular telephone follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of life as measured by the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 and EuroQol-5D and cost-effectiveness as measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Costs and quality of life were higher in the nurse-managed group than the usual care group. The ICERs over 12 months were $17,543 per EuroQol-5D-based quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $15,169 per Health Utilities Index Mark 3-based QALY (in 2001 U.S. dollars). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: From a payer perspective, the ICER ranged from $3673 to $4495 per QALY. Applying national prices in place of New York City prices yielded a societal ICER of $13,460 to $15,556 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves suggest that the intervention was most likely cost-effective for patients with less severe (New York Heart Association classes I to II) heart failure. LIMITATION: The trial was conducted in an ethnically diverse, inner-city neighborhood; thus, results may not be generalizable to other communities. CONCLUSION: Over 12 months, the nurse-led disease management program was a reasonably cost-effective way to reduce the burden of heart failure in this community.
Authors: Edward K Kasper; Gary Gerstenblith; Gail Hefter; Elizabeth Van Anden; Jeffrey A Brinker; David R Thiemann; Michael Terrin; Sandra Forman; Sheldon H Gottlieb Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-02-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Brad Smith; Emma Forkner; Barbara Zaslow; Richard A Krasuski; Karl Stajduhar; Michael Kwan; Robert Ellis; Autumn Dawn Galbreath; Gregory L Freeman Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Mary D Naylor; Dorothy A Brooten; Roberta L Campbell; Greg Maislin; Kathleen M McCauley; J Sanford Schwartz Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jonathan G Howlett; Robert S McKelvie; Jeannine Costigan; Anique Ducharme; Estrellita Estrella-Holder; Justin A Ezekowitz; Nadia Giannetti; Haissam Haddad; George A Heckman; Anthony M Herd; Debra Isaac; Simon Kouz; Kori Leblanc; Peter Liu; Elizabeth Mann; Gordon W Moe; Eileen O'Meara; Miroslav Rajda; Samuel Siu; Paul Stolee; Elizabeth Swiggum; Shelley Zeiroth Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Hillary R Bogner; Steven D Miller; Heather F de Vries; Sumedha Chhatre; Ravishankar Jayadevappa Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2010-03-06 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Modele O Ogunniyi; James B Holt; Janet B Croft; Isaac A Nwaise; Henry E Okafor; Douglas B Sawyer; Wayne H Giles; George A Mensah Journal: Am J Med Sci Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.378
Authors: Rebecca S Boxer; Mary A Dolansky; Christine A Bodnar; Mendel E Singer; Jeffery M Albert; Stefan Gravenstein Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 4.669