Cost-Effectiveness of a Proactive Primary Care Program for Frail Older People: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

A proactive integrated approach has shown to preserve daily functioning among older people in the community. The aim is to determine the cost-effectiveness of a proactive integrated primary care program.

METHODS

Economic evaluation embedded in a single-blind, 3-armed, cluster-randomized controlled trial with 12 months' follow-up in 39 general practices in the Netherlands. General practices were randomized to one of 3 trial arms: (1) an electronic frailty screening instrument using routine medical record data followed by standard general practitioner (GP) care; (2) this screening instrument followed by a nurse-led care program; or (3) usual care. Health resource utilization data were collected using electronic medical records and questionnaires. Associated costs were calculated. A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective was undertaken. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year was calculated comparing proactive screening arm with usual care, and screening plus nurse-led care arm with usual care, as well as the screening arm with screening plus nurse-led care arm.

RESULTS

Out of 7638 potential participants, 3092 (40.5%) older adults participated. Whereas effect differences were minor, the total costs per patient were lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care. The probability of cost-effectiveness at €20,000 per QALY threshold was 87% and 91% for screening plus GP care versus usual care and for screening plus nurse-led care compared to usual care, respectively. For screening plus nurse-led care vs screening plus standard GP care, the probability was 55%.

CONCLUSION

A proactive screening intervention has a high probability of being cost-effective compared to usual care. The combined intervention showed less value for money.

Long-term outcomes and cost effectiveness of high-dose dexamethasone for cardiac surgery: a randomised trial

Prophylactic intra-operative administration of dexamethasone may improve short-term clinical outcomes in cardiac surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of dexamethasone versus placebo. Patients included in the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled DExamethasone for Cardiac Surgery (DECS) trial were followed up for 12 months after their cardiac surgical procedure. In the DECS trial, patients received a single intra-operative dose of dexamethasone 1 mg.kg^-1 (n = 2239) or placebo (n = 2255). The effects on the incidence of major postoperative events were evaluated. Also, overall costs for the 12-month postoperative period, and cost effectiveness, were compared between groups. Of 4494 randomised patients, 4457 patients (99%) were followed up until 12 months after surgery. There was no difference in the incidence of major postoperative events, the relative risk (95%CI) being 0.86 (0.72-1.03); p = 0.1. Treatment with dexamethasone reduced costs per patient by £921 [€1084] (95%CI £-1672 to -137; p = 0.02), mainly through reduction of postoperative respiratory failure and duration of postoperative hospital stay. The probability of dexamethasone being cost effective compared with placebo was 97% at a threshold value of £17,000 [€20,000] per quality-adjusted life year. We conclude that intra-operative high-dose dexamethasone did not have an effect on major adverse events at 12 months after cardiac surgery, but was associated with a reduction in costs. Routine dexamethasone administration is expected to be cost effective at commonly accepted threshold levels for cost effectiveness.