Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions for Patients With Heart Failure: Systematic Review

Abstract

Background Digital health interventions (DHIs) have shown promising results in enhancing the management of heart failure (HF). Although health care interventions are increasingly being delivered digitally, with growing evidence on the potential cost-effectiveness of adopting them, there has been little effort to collate and synthesize the findings. Objective This study’s objective was to systematically review the economic evaluations that assess the adoption of DHIs in the management and treatment of HF. Methods A systematic review was conducted using 3 electronic databases: PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Scopus. Articles reporting full economic evaluations of DHIs for patients with HF published up to July 2023 were eligible for inclusion. Study characteristics, design (both trial based and model based), input parameters, and main results were extracted from full-text articles. Data synthesis was conducted based on the technologies used for delivering DHIs in the management of patients with HF, and the findings were analyzed narratively. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed for this systematic review. The reporting quality of the included studies was evaluated using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) guidelines. Results Overall, 27 economic evaluations were included in the review. The economic evaluations were based on models (13/27, 48%), trials (13/27, 48%), or a combination approach (1/27, 4%). The devices evaluated included noninvasive remote monitoring devices (eg, home telemonitoring using digital tablets or specific medical devices that enable transmission of physiological data), telephone support, mobile apps and wearables, remote monitoring follow-up in patients with implantable medical devices, and videoconferencing systems. Most of the studies (24/27, 89%) used cost-utility analysis. The majority of the studies (25/27, 93%) were conducted in high-income countries, particularly European countries (16/27, 59%) such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Mobile apps and wearables, remote monitoring follow-up in patients with implantable medical devices, and videoconferencing systems yielded cost-effective results or even emerged as dominant strategies. However, conflicting results were observed, particularly in noninvasive remote monitoring devices and telephone support. In 15% (4/27) of the studies, these DHIs were found to be less costly and more effective than the comparators (ie, dominant), while 33% (9/27) reported them to be more costly but more effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below the respective willingness-to-pay thresholds (ie, cost-effective). Furthermore, in 11% (3/27) of the studies, noninvasive remote monitoring devices and telephone support were either above the willingness-to-pay thresholds or more costly than, yet as effective as, the comparators (ie, not cost-effective). In terms of reporting quality, the studies were classified as good (20/27, 74%), moderate (6/27, 22%), or excellent (1/27, 4%). Conclusions Despite the conflicting results, the main findings indicated that, overall, DHIs were more cost-effective than non-DHI alternatives. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42023388241; https://tinyurl.com/2p9axpmc