EuroEco (European Health Economic Trial on Home Monitoring in ICD Patients): a provider perspective in five European countries on costs and net financial impact of follow-up with or without remote monitoring.

AIM: Remote follow-up (FU) of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) allows for fewer in-office visits in combination with earlier detection of relevant findings. Its implementation requires investment and reorganization of care. Providers (physicians or hospitals) are unsure about the financial impact. The primary end-point of this randomized prospective multicentre health economic trial was the total FU-related cost for providers, comparing Home Monitoring facilitated FU (HM ON) to regular in-office FU (HM OFF) during the first 2 years after ICD implantation. Also the net financial impact on providers (taking national reimbursement into account) and costs from a healthcare payer perspective were evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 312 patients with VVI- or DDD-ICD implants from 17 centres in six EU countries were randomised to HM ON or OFF, of which 303 were eligible for data analysis. For all contacts (in-office, calendar- or alert-triggered web-based review, discussions, calls) time-expenditure was tracked. Country-specific cost parameters were used to convert resource use into monetary values. Remote FU equipment itself was not included in the cost calculations. Given only two patients from Finland (one in each group) a monetary valuation analysis was not performed for Finland. Average age was 62.4 ± 13.1 years, 81% were male, 39% received a DDD system, and 51% had a prophylactic ICD. Resource use with HM ON was clearly different: less FU visits (3.79 ± 1.67 vs. 5.53 ± 2.32; P < 0.001) despite a small increase of unscheduled visits (0.95 ± 1.50 vs. 0.62 ± 1.25; P < 0.005), more non-office-based contacts (1.95 ± 3.29 vs. 1.01 ± 2.64; P < 0.001), more Internet sessions (11.02 ± 15.28 vs. 0.06 ± 0.31; P < 0.001) and more in-clinic discussions (1.84 ± 4.20 vs. 1.28 ± 2.92; P < 0.03), but with numerically fewer hospitalizations (0.67 ± 1.18 vs. 0.85 ± 1.43, P = 0.23) and shorter length-of-stay (6.31 ± 15.5 vs. 8.26 ± 18.6; P = 0.27), although not significant. For the whole study population, the total FU cost for providers was not different for HM ON vs. OFF [mean (95% CI): €204 (169-238) vs. €213 (182-243); range for difference (€-36 to 54), NS]. From a payer perspective, FU-related costs were similar while the total cost per patient (including other physician visits, examinations, and hospitalizations) was numerically (but not significantly) lower. There was no difference in the net financial impact on providers [profit of €408 (327-489) vs. €400 (345-455); range for difference (€-104 to 88), NS], but there was heterogeneity among countries, with less profit for providers in the absence of specific remote FU reimbursement (Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands) and maintained or increased profit in cases where such reimbursement exists (Germany and UK). Quality of life (SF-36) was not different. CONCLUSION: For all the patients as a whole, FU-related costs for providers are not different for remote FU vs. purely in-office FU, despite reorganized care. However, disparity in the impact on provider budget among different countries illustrates the need for proper reimbursement to ensure effective remote FU implementation.

Cost-consequence analysis of daily continuous remote monitoring of implantable cardiac defibrillator and resynchronization devices in the UK.

AIMS: The need for ongoing and lifelong follow-up (FU) of patients with cardiac implantable electric devices (CIED) requires significant resources. Remote CIED management has been established as a safe alternative to conventional periodical in-office FU (CFU). An economic model compares the long-term cost and consequences of using daily Home Monitoring® (HM) instead of CFU. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cost-consequence evaluation comparing HM vs. CFU was performed using a Markov cohort model and data relating to events and costs identified via a systematic review of the literature. The model is conservative, without assuming a reduction of cardiovascular events by HM such as decompensated heart failure or mortality, or considering cost savings such as for transportation. Also cost savings due to an improved timing of elective device replacement, and fewer FU visits needed in patients near device replacement are not considered. Over 10 years, HM is predicted to be cost neutral at about GBP 11 500 per patient in either treatment arm, with all costs for the initial investment into HM and fees for ongoing remote monitoring included. Fewer inappropriate shocks (-51%) reduce the need for replacing devices for battery exhaustion (-7%); the number of FU visits is predicted to be halved by HM. CONCLUSION: From a UK National Health Service perspective, HM is cost neutral over 10 years. This is mainly accomplished by reducing the number of battery charges and inappropriate shocks, resulting in fewer device replacements, and by reducing the number of in-clinic FU visits.

Cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed plus cisplatin: malignant pleural mesothelioma treatment in UK clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: Findings from the largest randomized phase III trial in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (EMPHACIS study; n = 448) were used to examine the cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed plus cisplatin therapy versus cisplatin monotherapy in patients with the disease. The cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed/cisplatin versus alternative treatments was also examined. METHODS: Two cost-effectiveness analyses were designed to model best survival outcome over time for a number of patient cohorts. First, trial-based patient-level data were utilized and resource use was costed for the study arm and comparator. A second cost-effectiveness analysis then compared the mean costs and outcomes associated with pemetrexed/cisplatin with the most commonly used (unlicensed) regimens in the United Kingdom-mitomycin-C, vinblastine, and cisplatin (MVP); vinorelbine; and active symptom control-using trial-based data and data extrapolated from a review of the literature. RESULTS: The total pemetrexed/cisplatin cost per patient varied between pound8779 and pound9020 for all cohorts studied in model 1. Average life-years gained per patient were between 0.20 and 0.28. Quality-adjusted life-years, based on mean and median survival, ranged from 0.13 to 0.31. Incremental cost per life-year gained and quality-adjusted life-year ratios, using both mean and median survival, ranged from pound20,475 to pound68,598. The second cost-effectiveness analysis resulted in ratios ranging from pound14,595 to pound32,066. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed/cisplatin demonstrated acceptable cost-effectiveness when compared with cisplatin monotherapy and alternative treatments commonly used in UK clinical practice.

Cabergoline versus levodopa monotherapy: a decision analysis.

We evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of cabergoline compared with levodopa monotherapy in patients with early Parkinson's disease (PD) in the German healthcare system. The study design was based on cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model with a 10-year time horizon. Model input data was based on a clinical trial "Early Treatment of PD with Cabergoline" as well as on cost data of a German hospital/office-based PD network. Direct and indirect medical and nonmedical costs were included. Outcomes were costs, disease stage, cumulative complication incidence, and mortality. An annual discount rate of 5% was applied and the societal perspective was chosen. The target population included patients in Hoehn and Yahr Stages I to III. It was found that the occurrence of motor complications was significantly lower in patients on cabergoline monotherapy. For patients aged >/=60 years of age, cabergoline monotherapy was cost effective when considering costs per decreased UPDRS score. Each point decrease in the UPDRS (I-IV) resulted in costs of euro;1,031. Incremental costs per additional motor complication-free patient were euro;104,400 for patients <60 years of age and euro;57,900 for patients >/=60 years of age. In conclusion, this decision-analytic model calculation for PD was based almost entirely on clinical and observed data with a limited number of assumptions. Although costs were higher in patients on cabergoline, the corresponding cost-effectiveness ratio for cabergoline was at least as favourable as the ratios for many commonly accepted therapies.