Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal.
Faculty of Medicine, Agostinho Neto University, Luanda, Angola.
Clin Exp Allergy. 2024 Sep;54(9):651-668. doi: 10.1111/cea.14547. Epub 2024 Aug 12.
Digital interventions such as remote monitoring of symptoms and physiological measurements have the potential to reduce the economic burden of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but their cost-effectiveness remains unclear. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT) aims to assess whether digital health interventions can be cost-effective in these patients.
Systematic review of RCTs. Study quality was assessed using RoB2 tool.
Systematic search in three databases: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science.
Studies were eligible if they were RCTs with health economic evaluations assessing participants with asthma and/or COPD and comparing a digital health intervention to standard of care.
We included 35 RCTs, of which 21 were related to COPD, 13 to asthma and one to both diseases. Overall, studies assessed four categories of digital health interventions: (i) Electronic patient diaries (n = 4), (ii) real-time monitoring (n = 19), (iii) teleconsultations (n = 6) and (iv) others (n = 6). Eleven studies performed a full economic evaluation analysis, while 24 studies performed a partial economic analysis. Most studies involving real-time monitoring or teleconsultations presented economic results in favour of digital health interventions (indicating them to be cost-effective or less expensive than the standard of care). Mixed results were obtained for electronic patient diaries. In the studies that conducted a full economic analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranged from 3530,93€/QALY and 286,369,28€/QALY. In the studies that conducted a partial economic analysis, the cost differences between the intervention group and the control group ranged from 0,12€ and 85,217,86€. Half studies with low risk of bias concluded that the intervention was economically favourable.
Although costs varied based on intervention type, follow-up period and country, most studies report digital health interventions to be affordable or associated with decreased costs.
PROSPERO: CRD42023439195.
远程监测症状和生理测量等数字干预措施有可能降低哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)的经济负担,但它们的成本效益仍不清楚。本系统评价旨在评估数字健康干预措施是否对这些患者具有成本效益。
随机对照试验(RCT)的系统评价。使用 RoB2 工具评估研究质量。
在三个数据库中进行系统搜索:PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Science。
如果研究是 RCT,且具有健康经济评估,评估对象为哮喘和/或 COPD,并将数字健康干预与标准护理进行比较,则研究符合入选标准。
我们纳入了 35 项 RCT,其中 21 项与 COPD 相关,13 项与哮喘相关,1 项与两种疾病均相关。总体而言,研究评估了四类数字健康干预措施:(i)电子患者日记(n=4)、(ii)实时监测(n=19)、(iii)远程咨询(n=6)和(iv)其他(n=6)。11 项研究进行了全面的经济评估分析,而 24 项研究进行了部分经济分析。大多数涉及实时监测或远程咨询的研究都得出了有利于数字健康干预的经济结果(表明它们具有成本效益或比标准护理更便宜)。电子患者日记的结果则喜忧参半。在进行全面经济分析的研究中,增量成本效益比(ICER)范围从 3530.93€/QALY 到 286369.28€/QALY。在进行部分经济分析的研究中,干预组和对照组之间的成本差异范围从 0.12€到 85217.86€。有一半低偏倚风险的研究得出结论,干预措施在经济上是有利的。
尽管干预类型、随访时间和国家不同,成本也有所不同,但大多数研究报告称数字健康干预措施是负担得起的或与降低成本相关。
PROSPERO:CRD42023439195。