BackgroundHeart failure patients with implantable defibrillators place a significant burden on health care systems. Remote monitoring allows assessment of device function and heart failure parameters, and may represent a safe, effective, and cost-saving method compared to conventional in-office follow-up.ObjectiveWe hypothesized that remote device monitoring represents a cost-effective approach. This paper summarizes the economic evaluation of the Evolution of Management Strategies of Heart Failure Patients With Implantable Defibrillators (EVOLVO) study, a multicenter clinical trial aimed at measuring the benefits of remote monitoring for heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators.MethodsTwo hundred patients implanted with a wireless transmission–enabled implantable defibrillator were randomized to receive either remote monitoring or the conventional method of in-person evaluations. Patients were followed for 16 months with a protocol of scheduled in-office and remote follow-ups. The economic evaluation of the intervention was conducted from the perspectives of the health care system and the patient. A cost-utility analysis was performed to measure whether the intervention was cost-effective in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.ResultsOverall, remote monitoring did not show significant annual cost savings for the health care system (€1962.78 versus €2130.01; P=.80). There was a significant reduction of the annual cost for the patients in the remote arm in comparison to the standard arm (€291.36 versus €381.34; P=.01). Cost-utility analysis was performed for 180 patients for whom QALYs were available. The patients in the remote arm gained 0.065 QALYs more than those in the standard arm over 16 months, with a cost savings of €888.10 per patient. Results from the cost-utility analysis of the EVOLVO study show that remote monitoring is a cost-effective and dominant solution.ConclusionsRemote management of heart failure patients with implantable defibrillators appears to be cost-effective compared to the conventional method of in-person evaluations.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00873899; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00873899 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6H0BOA29f).

Despite modern highly efficacious technologies, there is still a lack of consensus on how to optimally treat haemophilia patients with inhibitors. The aim of the study was to evaluate preferences towards the characteristics of different coagulation factor concentrates for haemophilia inhibitors patients, from the perspective of patients or their caregivers, haematologists and pharmacists. A discrete choice study was conducted. Potential products were described with eight selected characteristics: perceived viral safety, risk of anamnestic response, possibility of undergoing major surgery, frequency of infusions in prophylaxis, number of infusions to stop bleeding, time to stop bleeding, time to pain recovery and cost. Participants received 16 pairs of potential products and chose from each pair the option they considered better. Data were analysed with a random-effects conditional logistic model. Totally 1614 observations were obtained from 37 patients/caregivers, 39 physicians and 25 pharmacists from Italy. Cost was the most important characteristic to every group. For patients/caregivers, the next most important factors were: risk of anamnestic response, possibility of undergoing major surgery and perceived viral safety. For physicians, the next most important characteristics were: risk of anamnestic response, number of infusions to stop bleeding and possibility of undergoing major surgery. For pharmacists, the next most important factors were: time to stop bleeding, time to pain recovery and possibility of undergoing major surgery. Decisions on treatments must take into account patients clinical needs; however, preferences can also play an important role in the choice and success of treatments. The results of this study could, therefore, help decision-makers to optimize the overall benefits of treatments.

Our study shows that the remote follow-up of pacemakers is a reliable, effective, and cost-saving procedure in elderly, debilitated patients. Moreover, remote controls provided an accurate and early diagnosis of arrhythmia occurrence.

Preferences for AAA treatment characteristics differ between groups of involved subjects. Understanding individuals' preferences could help in optimising treatment benefits.

The initiation of sVLPD in elderly CKD5 subjects is a safe and beneficial strategy for these patients and allows them to gain economic resources that can be allocated to further health care investments.