Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Value Health. 2013 Jun;16(4):517-28. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.01.010. Epub 2013 May 3.
Hospital admissions for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are the main cost drivers of the disease. An alternative is to treat suitable patients at home instead of in the hospital. This article reports on the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of early assisted discharge in The Netherlands.
In the multicenter randomized controlled Assessment of GOing Home under Early Assisted Discharge trial (n = 139), one group received 7 days of inpatient hospital treatment (HOSP) and one group was discharged after 3 days and treated at home by community nurses for 4 days. Health care resource use, productivity losses, and informal care were recorded in cost questionnaires. Microcosting was performed for inpatient day costs.
Seven days after admission, mean change from baseline Clinical Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Questionnaire score was better for HOSP, but not statistically significantly: 0.29 (95% confidence interval [CI]-0.04 to 0.61). The difference in the probability of having a clinically relevant improvement was significant in favor of HOSP: 19.0%-point (95% CI 0.5%-36.3%). After 3 months of follow-up, differences in effectiveness had almost disappeared. The difference in quality-adjusted life-years was 0.0054 (95% CI-0.021 to 0.0095). From a health care perspective, early assisted discharge was cost saving:-€244 (treatment phase, 95% CI-€315 to-€168) and-€168 (3 months, 95% CI-€1253 to €922). Societal perspective:-€65 (treatment phase, 95% CI-€152 to €25) and €908 (3 months, 95% CI-€553 to €2296). The savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost were €31,111 from a health care perspective. From a societal perspective, HOSP was dominant.
No clear evidence was found to conclude that either treatment was more effective or less costly.
慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)加重导致的住院是该疾病的主要费用驱动因素。另一种选择是在医院之外对合适的患者进行治疗。本文报告了荷兰早期辅助出院的成本效益和成本效用。
在多中心随机对照评估早期辅助出院下的 GOing Home 试验(n=139)中,一组患者接受 7 天住院治疗(HOSP),另一组患者在住院 3 天后出院,并由社区护士在家中治疗 4 天。在成本调查问卷中记录了卫生保健资源的使用、生产力损失和非正式护理。对住院日费用进行微观成本核算。
入院后 7 天,从基线的临床慢性阻塞性肺病问卷评分来看,HOSP 组的平均变化更好,但无统计学意义:0.29(95%置信区间 [CI] -0.04 至 0.61)。在临床相关改善的概率方面,HOSP 组具有显著优势:19.0%(95% CI 0.5% 至 36.3%)。3 个月的随访后,有效性的差异几乎消失。质量调整生命年的差异为 0.0054(95% CI -0.021 至 0.0095)。从卫生保健角度来看,早期辅助出院具有成本效益:-€244(治疗阶段,95% CI -€315 至-€168)和-€168(3 个月,95% CI -€1253 至-€922)。从社会角度来看:-€65(治疗阶段,95% CI -€152 至-€25)和 €908(3 个月,95% CI -€553 至-€2296)。从卫生保健角度来看,每损失一个质量调整生命年的节省为 €31111。从社会角度来看,HOSP 是主导方案。
没有明确的证据表明任何一种治疗方案更有效或成本更低。