Economic evaluation of a nurse-led home and clinic-based secondary prevention programme to prevent progressive cardiac dysfunction in high-risk individuals: The Nurse-led Intervention for Less Chronic Heart Failure (NIL-CHF) randomized controlled study

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a long-term, nurse-led, multidisciplinary programme of home/clinic visits in preventing progressive cardiac dysfunction in patients at risk of developing de novo chronic heart failure (CHF).

Methods:

A trial-based analysis was conducted alongside a pragmatic, single-centre, open-label, randomized controlled trial of 611 patients (mean age: 66 years) with subclinical cardiovascular diseases (without CHF) discharged to home from an Australian tertiary referral hospital. A nurse-led home and clinic-based programme (NIL-CHF intervention, n = 301) was compared with standard care (n=310) in terms of life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and healthcare costs. The uncertainty around the incremental cost and QALYs was quantified by bootstrap simulations and displayed on a cost-effectiveness plane.

Results:

During a median follow-up of 4.2 years, there were no significant between-group differences in life-years (−0.056, p=0.488) and QALYs (−0.072, p=0.399), which were lower in the NIL-CHF group. The NIL-CHF group had slightly lower all-cause hospitalization costs (AUD$2943 per person; p=0.219), cardiovascular-related hospitalization costs (AUD$1142; p=0.592) and a more pronounced reduction in emergency/unplanned hospitalization costs (AUD$4194 per person; p=0.024). When the cost of intervention was added to all-cause, cardiovascular and emergency-related readmissions, the reductions in the NIL-CHF group were AUD$2742 (p=0.313), AUD$941 (p=0.719) and AUD$3993 (p=0.046), respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD$50,000/QALY, the probability of the NIL-CHF intervention being better-valued was 19%.

Conclusions:

Compared with standard care, the NIL-CHF intervention was not a cost-effective strategy as life-years and QALYs were slightly lower in the NIL-CHF group. However, it was associated with modest reductions in emergency/unplanned readmission costs.

Keywords

Secondary prevention multidisciplinary care nurse-led cardiac dysfunction cost effectiveness economic evaluation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hunt

Abraham

Chin

et al . 2009 Focused Update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Developed in Collaboration with the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 53: e1–e90.

Vader

LaRue

Stevens

et al . Timing and causes of readmission after acute heart failure hospitalization; insights from the Heart Failure Network Trials. J Card Fail 2016; 22: 875–883.

Yancy

Jessup

Bozkurt

et al . 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62: e147–239.

Stewart

Chan

Wong

et al . Impact of a nurse-led home and clinic-based secondary prevention programme to prevent progressive cardiac dysfunction in high-risk individuals: The Nurse-led Intervention for Less Chronic Heart Failure (NIL-CHF) randomized controlled study. Eur J Heart Fail 2015; 17: 620–630.

Carrington

Stewart

Bridging the gap in heart failure prevention: Rationale and design of the Nurse-led Intervention for Less Chronic Heart Failure (NIL-CHF) study. Eur J Heart Fail 2010; 12: 82–88.

Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute. The NIL-CHF study: Statistical Analysis Plan (version 2.0; 2014), http://www.cre2rihd.org.au/files/STATISTICAL%20ANALYSIS%20PLAN%20-%20NIL-CHF.pdf (2014, accessed 31 January 2017).

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australian refined diagnosis-related groups (AR-DRG) data cubes, http://www.aihw.gov.au/hospitals-data/ar-drg-data-cubes/ (2015, accessed 1 September 2015).

Stewart

Carrington

Marwick

et al . Impact of home versus clinic-based management of chronic heart failure: The WHICH? (Which Heart Failure Intervention Is Most Cost-Effective & Consumer Friendly in Reducing Hospital Care) multicenter, randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60: 1239–1248.

Maru

Byrnes

Carrington

et al . Cost-effectiveness of home versus clinic-based management of chronic heart failure: Extended follow-up of a pragmatic, multicentre randomized trial cohort; The WHICH? study (Which Heart Failure Intervention Is Most Cost-Effective & Consumer Friendly in Reducing Hospital Care). Int J Cardiol 2015; 201: 368–375.

10.

Campbell and Cochrane Economics Methods Group and the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre. ‘CCEMG – EPPI-Centre Cost Converter’ (v.1.5 update: 29 April 2016) http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/costconversion/default.aspx, (2016, accessed 22 January 2017).

11.

Australian Government DoH. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) guidelines. Version 5, http://www.pbac.pbs.gov.au/information/table-of-contents.html (2016, accessed 22 January 2017).

12.

Prieto

Sacristan

JA.

Problems and solutions in calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 80.

13.

EuroQol Group. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208.

14.

Viney

Norman

King

et al . Time trade-off derived EQ-5D weights for Australia. Value Health 2011; 14: 928–936.

15.

Johnston

Gray

Moher

et al . Reporting the cost-effectiveness of interventions with nonsignificant effect differences: Example from a trial of secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19: 476–489.

16.

Drummond

Sculpher

Torrance

et al . Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

17.

Chim

Kelly

Salkeld

et al . Are cancer drugs less likely to be recommended for listing by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia? Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28: 463–475.

18.

George

Harris

Mitchell

Cost-effectiveness analysis and the consistency of decision making: Evidence from pharmaceutical reimbursement in Australia (1991 to 1996). Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 1103–1109.

19.

Harris

Hill

Chin

et al . The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: A retrospective analysis 1994–2004. Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 713–722.