Bernhard Michalowsky1, Feng Xie2, Tilly Eichler3, Johannes Hertel4, Anika Kaczynski3, Ingo Kilimann5, Stefan Teipel5, Diana Wucherer3, Ina Zwingmann3, Jochen René Thyrian3, Wolfgang Hoffmann6. 1. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Greifswald, Germany; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (formerly Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. Electronic address: bernhard.michalowsky@dzne.de. 2. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact (formerly Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; Program for Health Economics and Outcome Measures (PHENOM), Hamilton, Canada. 3. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Greifswald, Germany. 4. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Greifswald, Germany; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. 5. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Rostock, Rostock, Germany; German Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Rostock, Germany. 6. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Greifswald, Germany; Institute for Community Medicine, Section Epidemiology of Health Care and Community Health, University Medicine Greifswald (UMG), Greifswald, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of collaborative dementia care management (DCM). METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the data of 444 patients of a cluster-randomized, controlled trial, conceptualized to evaluate a collaborative DCM that aimed to optimize treatment and care in dementia. Health-care resource use, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY gained were measured over a 24-month time horizon. RESULTS:DCM increased QALYs (+0.05) and decreased costs (-569€) due to a lower hospitalization and a delayed institutionalization (7 months) compared with usual care. The probability of DCM being cost-effective was 88% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of 40,000€ per QALY gained and higher in patients living alone compared to those not living alone (96% vs. 26%). DISCUSSION: DCM is likely to be a cost-effective strategy in treating dementia and thus beneficial for public health-care payers and patients, especially for those living alone.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of collaborative dementia care management (DCM). METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the data of 444 patients of a cluster-randomized, controlled trial, conceptualized to evaluate a collaborative DCM that aimed to optimize treatment and care in dementia. Health-care resource use, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY gained were measured over a 24-month time horizon. RESULTS:DCM increased QALYs (+0.05) and decreased costs (-569€) due to a lower hospitalization and a delayed institutionalization (7 months) compared with usual care. The probability of DCM being cost-effective was 88% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of 40,000€ per QALY gained and higher in patients living alone compared to those not living alone (96% vs. 26%). DISCUSSION: DCM is likely to be a cost-effective strategy in treating dementia and thus beneficial for public health-care payers and patients, especially for those living alone.
Authors: Britta Müller; Peter Kropp; Maria Isabel Cardona; Bernhard Michalowsky; Nanja van den Berg; Stefan Teipel; Wolfgang Hoffmann; Jochen René Thyrian Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Amy Rosenwohl-Mack; Leslie Dubbin; Anna Chodos; Sarah Dulaney; Min-Lin Fang; Jennifer Merrilees; Elena Portacolone Journal: Innov Aging Date: 2021-01-18
Authors: Jochen René Thyrian; Friederike Kracht; Angela Nikelski; Melanie Boekholt; Fanny Schumacher-Schönert; Anika Rädke; Bernhard Michalowsky; Horst Christian Vollmar; Wolfgang Hoffmann; Francisca S Rodriguez; Stefan H Kreisel Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-12-29 Impact factor: 3.921