No abstract

Objective:This review aims to evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of remote patient monitoring for cardiovascular disease in the United States.Introduction:Cardiovascular disease is a leading public health concern in the United States, resulting in a substantial economic burden. Remote patient monitoring has emerged as a viable and valuable care delivery method to improve cardiovascular disease management at home. However, there is limited systematic research of the cost and cost-effectiveness of using remote patient monitoring to manage the disease.Inclusion criteria:This review will consider all studies evaluating the cost of remote patient monitoring for cardiovascular disease management in the United States. The population of interest includes all individuals with various types of chronic cardiovascular disease in the United States.Methods:The search strategy will locate both published and unpublished studies. Systematic searches will be completed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion between all study members. The JBI checklist for economic evaluations will be utilized to evaluate the methodological quality of studies. Data will be extracted using a modified version of the JBI data extraction form for economic evaluations. Reviewers will summarize studies and cost-related metrics. The Dominance Ranking Matrix will be used to synthesize full economic evaluation.Systematic review registration number:PROSPERO CRD42021270621

Background Remote patient monitoring (RPM) has emerged as a viable and valuable care delivery method to improve chronic disease management. In light of the high prevalence and substantial economic burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD), this systematic review examines the cost and cost-effectiveness of using RPM to manage CVD in the United States. Methods We systematically searched databases to identify potentially relevant research. Findings were synthesized for cost and cost-effectiveness by economic study type with consideration of study perspective, intervention, clinical outcome, and time horizon. The methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Economic Evaluations. Results Thirteen articles with fourteen studies published between 2011 and 2021 were included in the final review. Studies from the provider perspective with a narrow scope of cost components identified higher costs and similar effectiveness for the RPM group relative to the usual care group. However, studies from payer and healthcare sector perspectives indicate better clinical effectiveness of RPM relative to usual care, with two cost-utility analysis studies suggesting that RPM relative to usual care is a cost-effective tool for CVD management even at the conservative $50,000 per Quality-Adjusted Life-Year threshold. Additionally, all model-based studies revealed that RPM is cost-effective in the long run. Conclusions Full economic evaluations identified RPM as a potentially cost-effective tool, particularly for long-term CVD management. In addition to the current literature, rigorous economic analysis with a broader perspective is needed in evaluating the value and economic sustainability of RPM.