John P Ney1,2, Stephanie A Robinson1,2, Caroline R Richardson3, Marilyn L Moy4,5. 1. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 4. VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a technology-based physical activity (PA) intervention for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Design: A secondary data analysis was performed from a randomized controlled trial in COPD of an activity monitor alone or an activity monitor plus a web-based PA intervention. Models estimated cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) compared with usual care. Results: The estimated ICER for both groups was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY (activity monitor alone = $10,437/QALY; website plus activity monitor intervention = $13,065/QALY). A probabilistic simulation estimated 76% of the activity monitor-alone group and 78% of the intervention group simulations to be cost-effective. Conclusion(s): Both the activity monitor-alone group and the activity monitor plus website group were cost-effective at the base case by using conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. Further research would benefit from a more direct estimate of health utilities and downstream health care costs. Clinical Trials.gov NCT01102777.
Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a technology-based physical activity (PA) intervention for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Design: A secondary data analysis was performed from a randomized controlled trial in COPD of an activity monitor alone or an activity monitor plus a web-based PA intervention. Models estimated cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) compared with usual care. Results: The estimated ICER for both groups was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY (activity monitor alone = $10,437/QALY; website plus activity monitor intervention = $13,065/QALY). A probabilistic simulation estimated 76% of the activity monitor-alone group and 78% of the intervention group simulations to be cost-effective. Conclusion(s): Both the activity monitor-alone group and the activity monitor plus website group were cost-effective at the base case by using conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. Further research would benefit from a more direct estimate of health utilities and downstream health care costs. Clinical Trials.gov NCT01102777.
Authors: Benjamin Waschki; Anne M Kirsten; Olaf Holz; Kai-Christian Mueller; Miriam Schaper; Anna-Lena Sack; Thorsten Meyer; Klaus F Rabe; Helgo Magnussen; Henrik Watz Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-08-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Mafalda Ramos; Mark Lamotte; Laetitia Gerlier; Per Svangren; Anna Miquel-Cases; John Haughney Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2019-01-15