A trial-based economic evaluation of the CaFaSpA referral strategy for axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-utility from healthcare and societal perspectives of the digital CaFaSpA referral strategy (CS) for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in primary care patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHOD: A cluster randomized controlled trial was performed in the Netherlands. General practice units were randomized into CS or usual care (UC). Economic evaluation was performed from the healthcare and societal perspectives within a 12-month time horizon. Outcome measures encompassed disability [Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)] and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L). Direct medical (iMTA Medical Consumption Questionnaire) and indirect costs (iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire), including productivity loss, were evaluated. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated. RESULTS: The study included 90 GP clusters with 563 patients (CS: n = 260; UC: n = 303) (mean ± sd age 36.3 ± 7.5 years; 66% female). After 12 months, no minimal important differences in outcomes were observed for RMDQ (-0.21, 95%CI -1.52 to 1.13) or EQ-5D (-0.02, 95%CI -0.08 to 0.05). However, total costs were significantly lower in the CS group owing to lower productivity loss costs. The ICUR for RMDQ was €18,059 per point decrease and €220,457 per quality-adjusted life year increase. CONCLUSIONS: Digital referral did not decrease the overall healthcare status of patients after 1 year of follow-up and appears to be more cost-effective than UC. Therefore, CS can be used as an appropriate primary care referral model for CLBP patients at risk for axSpA. This will accelerate timely provision of care by the right caregiver.

Impact of triage by a rheumatologist on appropriateness of referrals from primary to secondary care: a cluster randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The quality of referrals is often criticized, and the effectiveness of improvement efforts remains uncertain. We assessed the impact of a rheumatologist triaging patients in primary care on the appropriateness of referrals to secondary care, healthcare utilization, and patient experience and outcomes. METHOD: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted with patients experiencing musculoskeletal complaints. Intervention practices deployed an experienced rheumatologist triaging patients through in-person review. Usual care was performed in control practices, where practitioners referred patients based on their own judgement. The primary outcome was the proportion of inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs) diagnosed by rheumatologists in referred patients. Healthcare utilization (iMTA Medical Consumption Questionnaire), quality of life (EuroQol 5 Dimensions), and experience of care (Consumer Quality Index) were determined after 3 months of follow-up. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: In total, 544 participants were included [mean age 51.4 (range 18-87) years; 24% were men]. Of all referred patients, 51% had an IRD in the intervention group versus 21% in the control group (p = 0.035). After 3 months of follow-up, patients from the triage intervention showed lower healthcare utilization (p = 0.006) and higher quality of life (p = 0.011), without a decline in experienced quality of care (p = 0.712), compared to controls. CONCLUSION: Triage by a rheumatologist in primary care provides appropriate care and adequate experience of care, leading to a higher quality of life. Long-term evidence is needed to assess the value on cost-effectiveness before implementing this strategy nationwide.