OBJECTIVES: Hospital admissions for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are the main cost drivers of the disease. An alternative is to treat suitable patients at home instead of in the hospital. This article reports on the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of early assisted discharge in The Netherlands. METHODS: In the multicenter randomized controlled Assessment of GOing Home under Early Assisted Discharge trial (n = 139), one group received 7 days of inpatient hospital treatment (HOSP) and one group was discharged after 3 days and treated at home by community nurses for 4 days. Health care resource use, productivity losses, and informal care were recorded in cost questionnaires. Microcosting was performed for inpatient day costs. RESULTS: Seven days after admission, mean change from baseline Clinical Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Questionnaire score was better for HOSP, but not statistically significantly: 0.29 (95% confidence interval [CI]-0.04 to 0.61). The difference in the probability of having a clinically relevant improvement was significant in favor of HOSP: 19.0%-point (95% CI 0.5%-36.3%). After 3 months of follow-up, differences in effectiveness had almost disappeared. The difference in quality-adjusted life-years was 0.0054 (95% CI-0.021 to 0.0095). From a health care perspective, early assisted discharge was cost saving:-€244 (treatment phase, 95% CI-€315 to-€168) and-€168 (3 months, 95% CI-€1253 to €922). Societal perspective:-€65 (treatment phase, 95% CI-€152 to €25) and €908 (3 months, 95% CI-€553 to €2296). The savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost were €31,111 from a health care perspective. From a societal perspective, HOSP was dominant. CONCLUSIONS: No clear evidence was found to conclude that either treatment was more effective or less costly.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Hospital admissions for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are the main cost drivers of the disease. An alternative is to treat suitable patients at home instead of in the hospital. This article reports on the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of early assisted discharge in The Netherlands. METHODS: In the multicenter randomized controlled Assessment of GOing Home under Early Assisted Discharge trial (n = 139), one group received 7 days of inpatient hospital treatment (HOSP) and one group was discharged after 3 days and treated at home by community nurses for 4 days. Health care resource use, productivity losses, and informal care were recorded in cost questionnaires. Microcosting was performed for inpatient day costs. RESULTS: Seven days after admission, mean change from baseline Clinical Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Questionnaire score was better for HOSP, but not statistically significantly: 0.29 (95% confidence interval [CI]-0.04 to 0.61). The difference in the probability of having a clinically relevant improvement was significant in favor of HOSP: 19.0%-point (95% CI 0.5%-36.3%). After 3 months of follow-up, differences in effectiveness had almost disappeared. The difference in quality-adjusted life-years was 0.0054 (95% CI-0.021 to 0.0095). From a health care perspective, early assisted discharge was cost saving:-€244 (treatment phase, 95% CI-€315 to-€168) and-€168 (3 months, 95% CI-€1253 to €922). Societal perspective:-€65 (treatment phase, 95% CI-€152 to €25) and €908 (3 months, 95% CI-€553 to €2296). The savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost were €31,111 from a health care perspective. From a societal perspective, HOSP was dominant. CONCLUSIONS: No clear evidence was found to conclude that either treatment was more effective or less costly.
Authors: Seppo T Rinne; Meredith C Graves; Lori A Bastian; Peter K Lindenauer; Edwin S Wong; Paul L Hebert; Chuan-Fen Liu Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Cecile M A Utens; Lucas M A Goossens; Onno C P van Schayck; Maureen P H M Rutten-Vanmölken; Maria W Braken; Loes M G A van Eijsden; Frank W J M Smeenk Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Claudio M Sanguinetti; Nicolino Ambrosino; Filippo Andò; Fernando De Benedetto; Claudio F Donner; Stefano Nardini; Mario Polverino; Roberto Torchio; Guido Vagheggini; Alberto Visconti Journal: Multidiscip Respir Med Date: 2014-12-18
Authors: Lucas M A Goossens; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken; Melinde R S Boland; Bas Donkers; Marcel F Jonker; Annerika H M Slok; Philippe L Salomé; Onno C P van Schayck; Johannes C C M In 't Veen; Elly A Stolk Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Carlos Echevarria; Joanne Gray; Tom Hartley; John Steer; Jonathan Miller; A John Simpson; G John Gibson; Stephen C Bourke Journal: Thorax Date: 2018-04-21 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Shubing Cai; Orna Intrator; Caitlin Chan; Laurence Buxbaum; Mary Ann Haggerty; Ciaran S Phibbs; Edna Schwab; Bruce Kinosian Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-06-01