BackgroundCosts associated with an ACS incident are most pronounced in the acute phase but are also considerably long after the initial hospitalisation, partly due to considerable productivity losses, which constitute a substantial part of the economic burden of the disease. Studies suggest that person-centred care may improve health-related quality of life and reduce the costs associated with the disease.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to calculate the cost-effectiveness of a person-centred care intervention compared with usual care in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), in a Swedish setting.MethodsPrimary data from a randomised controlled trial of a person-centred intervention in patients with ACS was used. The person-centred intervention involved co-creation of a health plan between the patient and healthcare professionals, based on the patient’s narrative. Thereafter, goals for the recovery period were set and followed-up continuously throughout the intervention. The clinical data, collected during the randomised controlled trial, was complemented with data from national health registers and the Swedish Social Insurance Agency. The study was conducted at two hospitals situated in a Swedish municipality. Patients were enrolled between June 2011 and February 2014 (192 patients were included in this study; 89 in the intervention group and 103 in the control group). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated separately for the age groups < 65 years and ≥ 65 years in order to account for the age of retirement in Sweden. The cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated using health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and costs associated with healthcare and pharmaceutical utilisation, and productivity losses.ResultsTreatment effects and costs differed between those below and those above the age of 65 years. The base-case calculations showed that person-centred care was more effective and less costly compared with usual care for patients under 65 years of age, while usual care was more effective and less costly in the older age group. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses resulted in a 90% likelihood that person-centred care is cost-effective compared with usual care for patients with ACS under the age of 65 years.ConclusionsPerson-centred care was found to be cost-effective compared with usual care for patients with acute coronary syndrome under the age of 65 years. This clinical trial is registered at Researchweb (ID 65791).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s41669-019-0126-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Person-centred care has been shown to be cost-effective compared to usual care for several diseases, including acute coronary syndrome, in a short-term time perspective (< 2 years). The cost-effectiveness of person-centred care in a longer time perspective is largely unknown. Objectives To estimate the mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care for patients (< 65) with acute coronary syndrome, using a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective. Methods The mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care was estimated by projecting the outcomes observed in a randomized-controlled trial together with data from health registers and data from the scientific literature, 3 years beyond the 2-year follow-up, using the developed simulation model. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation. Results Person-centred care entails lower costs and improved effectiveness as compared to usual care, for a 2-year time and a 5-year perspective. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that the likelihoods of the person-centred care being cost-effective compared to usual care were between 80 and 99% and between 75 and 90% for a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective (using a 500,000 SEK/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold). Conclusions Person-centred care was less costly and more effective compared to usual care in a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective for patients with acute coronary syndrome under the age of 65.

Objectives The cost‐effectiveness of available pharmacological treatments for narcolepsy is largely unknown. Available pharmacological treatments are associated with tolerability, abuse, and adherence issues. Pitolisant is the first inverse agonist of the histamine H3 receptor to be prescribed for the treatment of narcolepsy with and without cataplexy. Studies suggest that pitolisant is both as effective as previously introduced drugs and is associated with fewer adverse effects. The objective in this study was to estimate the cost‐effectiveness of pitolisant as monotherapy, and pitolisant as an adjunctive treatment to modafinil, compared with standard treatment. Materials & Methods Calculations were performed using a Markov model with a 50‐year time horizon. Healthcare utilization and quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment alternative were calculated assuming no treatment effect on survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for treatment effectiveness and healthcare cost parameters. Results The cost per additional quality‐adjusted life year was estimated at SEK 356 337 (10 SEK ≈ 1 Euro) for pitolisant monotherapy, and at SEK 491 128 for pitolisant as an adjunctive treatment, as compared to standard treatment. The cost‐effectiveness measure was demonstrated to be particularly sensitive to the assumptions made concerning indirect effects on total healthcare utilization and the pitolisant treatment cost. Conclusions The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios were below the unofficial willingness‐to‐pay threshold at SEK 500 000. The estimated costs per additional QALY obtained here are likely to overestimate the true cost‐effectiveness ratio since significant potential indirect effects—pertaining both to labor‐market and household‐related productivity—of treatment are not taken into account.