OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost utility and cost effectiveness of a nonpharmacologic face-to-face treatment program compared with a telephone-based treatment program for patients with generalized osteoarthritis (GOA). METHODS: An economic evaluation was carried out alongside a randomized clinical trial involving 147 patients with GOA. Program costs were estimated from time registrations. One-year medical and nonmedical costs were estimated using cost questionnaires. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using the EuroQol (EQ) classification system, EQ rating scale, and the Short Form 6D (SF-6D). Daily function was measured using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI). Cost and QALY/effect differences were analyzed using multilevel regression analysis and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS:Medical costs of the face-to-face treatment and telephone-based treatment were estimated at €387 and €252, respectively. The difference in total societal costs was nonsignificantly in favor of the face-to-face program (difference €708; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -€5,058, €3,642). QALYs were similar for both groups according to the EQ, but were significantly in favor of the face-to-face group, according to the SF-6D (difference 0.022 [95% CI 0.000, 0.045]). Daily function was similar according to the HAQ DI. Since both societal costs and QALYs/effects were in favor of the face-to-face program, the economic assessment favored this program, regardless of society's willingness to pay. There was a 65-90% chance that the face-to-face program had better cost utility and a 60-70% chance of being cost effective. CONCLUSION: This economic evaluation from a societal perspective showed that a nonpharmacologic, face-to-face treatment program for patients with GOA was likely to be cost effective, relative to a telephone-based program.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost utility and cost effectiveness of a nonpharmacologic face-to-face treatment program compared with a telephone-based treatment program for patients with generalized osteoarthritis (GOA). METHODS: An economic evaluation was carried out alongside a randomized clinical trial involving 147 patients with GOA. Program costs were estimated from time registrations. One-year medical and nonmedical costs were estimated using cost questionnaires. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using the EuroQol (EQ) classification system, EQ rating scale, and the Short Form 6D (SF-6D). Daily function was measured using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI). Cost and QALY/effect differences were analyzed using multilevel regression analysis and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Medical costs of the face-to-face treatment and telephone-based treatment were estimated at €387 and €252, respectively. The difference in total societal costs was nonsignificantly in favor of the face-to-face program (difference €708; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -€5,058, €3,642). QALYs were similar for both groups according to the EQ, but were significantly in favor of the face-to-face group, according to the SF-6D (difference 0.022 [95% CI 0.000, 0.045]). Daily function was similar according to the HAQ DI. Since both societal costs and QALYs/effects were in favor of the face-to-face program, the economic assessment favored this program, regardless of society's willingness to pay. There was a 65-90% chance that the face-to-face program had better cost utility and a 60-70% chance of being cost effective. CONCLUSION: This economic evaluation from a societal perspective showed that a nonpharmacologic, face-to-face treatment program for patients with GOA was likely to be cost effective, relative to a telephone-based program.
Authors: Aniek A O M Claassen; Henk J Schers; Sander Koëter; Willemijn H van der Laan; Keetie C A L C Kremers-van de Hei; Joris Botman; Vincent J J F Busch; Wim H C Rijnen; Cornelia H M van den Ende Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Andréa Marques; Philipp Bosch; Annette de Thurah; Yvette Meissner; Louise Falzon; Chetan Mukhtyar; Johannes Wj Bijlsma; Christian Dejaco; Tanja A Stamm Journal: RMD Open Date: 2022-05
Authors: Annette de Thurah; Andrea Marques; Savia de Souza; Cynthia S Crowson; Elena Myasoedova Journal: Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 5.346