# Economic evaluation of a person-centred care intervention with a digital platform and structured telephone support for people with chronic heart failure and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a randomised controlled trial in Sweden

## TL;DR

A remote person-centred care intervention for people with chronic heart failure and/or COPD in Sweden was found to be more effective and less costly than usual care.

## Contribution

This study provides new evidence that a remote person-centred care intervention is both more effective and less costly for managing chronic diseases.

## Key findings

- The intervention group had lower healthcare utilisation and productivity loss.
- The PCC intervention resulted in incremental quality-adjusted life years and lower costs.
- The PCC alternative was dominant, being both more effective and less costly.

## Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the healthcare costs and effects of a remote person-centred care (PCC) add-on intervention compared with usual care for people with chronic heart failure (CHF) and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary Disease (COPD) from a societal perspective.

A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based on the results from a randomised controlled trial.

The study was conducted from August 2017 until June 2021 within nine primary care centres across Western Sweden.

Participants in the study had a diagnosis of COPD (J43.0, J44.0–J44.9) and/or CHF (I50.0–I50.9).

224 patients were randomly allocated to the study groups. After two withdrawals, the final intention-to-treat analysis included 110 participants in the intervention group and 112 in the control group.

Both the intervention and control group received usual care through their primary care centres. In addition, the intervention group participated in a remote PCC add-on intervention consisting of a digital platform and structured telephone support.

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using direct healthcare costs, productivity loss and prescription drug costs, compared with health effects measured using the EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) over a 2-year time horizon.

The intervention group had lower healthcare utilisation in inpatient care, specialised outpatient care and reduced productivity loss. The CEA showed incremental effects of 0.0469 quality-adjusted life years and incremental costs of SEK −68 533 (Swedish crowns). The PCC alternative was both more effective and resulted in lower healthcare costs compared with usual care, that is, PCC was dominant.

The results of this CEA demonstrated that a remote PCC add-on intervention for people with COPD and/or CHF had lower healthcare costs and higher health-related quality of life compared with usual care.

NCT03183817 ClinicalTrials.gov.