RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The main aim of this work was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of an integrated care concept (NICC) that combines telemonitoring with the support of a care centre in addition to guideline therapy for patients. Secondary aims were to compare health utility and health-related quality of life (QoL) between NICC and standard of care (SoC). METHODS: The randomised controlled CardioCare MV Trial compared NICC and SoC in patients from Mecklenburg-West Pomerania (Germany) with atrial fibrillation, heart failure or treatment-resistant hypertension. QoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L at baseline, 6 months and 1 year follow-up. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), EQ5D utility scores, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Scores and VAS adjusted life years (VAS-AL) were calculated. Cost data were obtained from health insurance companies, and the payer perspective was taken in health economic analyses. Quantile regression was used with adjustments for stratification variables. RESULTS: The net benefit of NICC (QALY) was 0.031 (95% CI 0.012 to 0.050; p=0.001) in this trial involving 957 patients. EQ5D Index values, VAS-ALs and VAS were larger for NICC compared with SoC at 1 year follow-up (all p≤0.004). Direct cost per patient and year were 323 (CI 157 to 489) lower in the NICC group. When 2000 patients are served by the care centre, NICC is cost-effective if one is willing to pay 10 652 per QALY per year. CONCLUSION: NICC was associated with higher QoL and health utility. The programme is cost-effective if one is willing to pay approximately 11 000 per QALY per year.
