OBJECTIVES: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a case management intervention by trained nurses in elderly (≥65 years) patients with myocardial infarction from a societal perspective. METHODS: The intervention and observation period spanned 1 year and 329 participants were enrolled. The intervention consisted of at least one home visit and quarterly telephone calls. Data on resource use and quality of life were collected quarterly. The primary measurements of effect were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), based on the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) health utilities from the German time trade-off. The secondary measurements were EQ-5D-3L utility values and patients' self-rated health states according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) among survivors. To estimate mean differences, a linear regression model was used for QALYs and a gamma model for costs. Health states among the survivors were analysed using linear mixed models. To assess the impact of different health state valuation methods, VAS-adjusted life years were constructed. RESULTS: The mean difference in QALYs was small and not significant (-0.0163; CI -0.0681-0.0354, p value: 0.536, n = 297). Among survivors, EQ-5D-3L utilities showed significant improvements within 6 months in the intervention group (0.051; CI 0.0028-0.0989; p value: 0.0379, n = 280) but returned towards baseline levels by month 12. The mean improvement in self-rated health (VAS) within 1 year was significantly larger in the intervention group (+9.2, CI 4.665-13.766, p value: <0.0001, n = 266). The overall cost difference was -<euro>17.61 (CI - <euro>2,601-<euro>2,615; p value: 0.9856, n = 297). The difference in VAS-adjusted life years was 0.0378 (CI -0.0040-0.0796, p value: 0.0759, n = 297). CONCLUSIONS: This study could not provide evidence to conclude that the case management intervention was an effective and cost-effective alternative to usual care within a time horizon of 1 year.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a case management intervention by trained nurses in elderly (≥65 years) patients with myocardial infarction from a societal perspective. METHODS: The intervention and observation period spanned 1 year and 329 participants were enrolled. The intervention consisted of at least one home visit and quarterly telephone calls. Data on resource use and quality of life were collected quarterly. The primary measurements of effect were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), based on the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) health utilities from the German time trade-off. The secondary measurements were EQ-5D-3L utility values and patients' self-rated health states according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) among survivors. To estimate mean differences, a linear regression model was used for QALYs and a gamma model for costs. Health states among the survivors were analysed using linear mixed models. To assess the impact of different health state valuation methods, VAS-adjusted life years were constructed. RESULTS: The mean difference in QALYs was small and not significant (-0.0163; CI -0.0681-0.0354, p value: 0.536, n = 297). Among survivors, EQ-5D-3L utilities showed significant improvements within 6 months in the intervention group (0.051; CI 0.0028-0.0989; p value: 0.0379, n = 280) but returned towards baseline levels by month 12. The mean improvement in self-rated health (VAS) within 1 year was significantly larger in the intervention group (+9.2, CI 4.665-13.766, p value: <0.0001, n = 266). The overall cost difference was -<euro>17.61 (CI - <euro>2,601-<euro>2,615; p value: 0.9856, n = 297). The difference in VAS-adjusted life years was 0.0378 (CI -0.0040-0.0796, p value: 0.0759, n = 297). CONCLUSIONS: This study could not provide evidence to conclude that the case management intervention was an effective and cost-effective alternative to usual care within a time horizon of 1 year.
Authors: Scott Ramsey; Richard Willke; Andrew Briggs; Ruth Brown; Martin Buxton; Anita Chawla; John Cook; Henry Glick; Bengt Liljas; Diana Petitti; Shelby Reed Journal: Value Health Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Jerome L Fleg; Daniel E Forman; Kathy Berra; Vera Bittner; James A Blumenthal; Michael A Chen; Susan Cheng; Dalane W Kitzman; Mathew S Maurer; Michael W Rich; Win-Kuang Shen; Mark A Williams; Susan J Zieman Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Lisa R Ulrich; Juliana J Petersen; Karola Mergenthal; Andrea Berghold; Gudrun Pregartner; Rolf Holle; Andrea Siebenhofer Journal: Health Econ Rev Date: 2019-02-07
Authors: Stuart Pocock; David B Brieger; Ruth Owen; Jiyan Chen; Mauricio G Cohen; Shaun Goodman; Christopher B Granger; José C Nicolau; Tabassome Simon; Dirk Westermann; Satoshi Yasuda; Katarina Hedman; Carl Mellström; Karolina Andersson Sundell; Richard Grieve Journal: Open Heart Date: 2021-02