The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
Cost-utility analysis of a web-based interactive patient education platform: evidence from a randomized clinical trial for end-stage renal disease patients.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Diop Modou, Perrier Lionel, Haon Baptiste, Rochaix Lise, Behaghel Luc, Dupont Jean-Claude K, Morelle Magali, Elias Michelle, Esposito Laure, Legendre Christophe, Longuet Hélène, Durand-Zaleski Isabelle, Pillebout Evangéline, PIC-R trial Investigators
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Chronic kidney disease and its most severe complication, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), represents an estimated financial burden of €4.4 billion in 2021 in France. Therapeutic patient education (TPE) improves ESRD management and health outcomes. This study explored whether providing access to an interactive web-based TPE platform with community features was cost-effective.
METHODS: A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out over an 18 months horizon, using data from the PIC-R (Plateforme Interactive Communautaire-dialyse et transplantation Rénale) trial. ESRD or post-transplant patients were randomized 1:1:1 to a control group with no specific TPE program (Control), an intervention group with online TPE (e-TPE) and an intervention group with online TPE coupled with community features such as a patient forum and a chatroom with both patients and health care professionals (e-TPE + chat). The outcome measure was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and per year of full capability (YFC). Both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were conducted, and missing data were handled using multiple imputation and selection models. Sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Among the 815 patients assessed for eligibility across 12 French centres, a total of 549 patients were included in the economic analysis: 186 in the Control group, 189 in the e-TPE group and 174 in the e-TPE + chat group. The e-TPE group demonstrated cost savings and slightly higher QALYs compared to the control group, making e-TPE dominant. Conversely, the e-TPE + chat intervention resulted in higher costs without substantial effectiveness gains, making it not cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: e-TPE was deemed cost-effective for ESRD patients, while e-TPE + chat was not. Web-based platforms improve ESRD management when targeted to likely users.
METHODS: A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out over an 18 months horizon, using data from the PIC-R (Plateforme Interactive Communautaire-dialyse et transplantation Rénale) trial. ESRD or post-transplant patients were randomized 1:1:1 to a control group with no specific TPE program (Control), an intervention group with online TPE (e-TPE) and an intervention group with online TPE coupled with community features such as a patient forum and a chatroom with both patients and health care professionals (e-TPE + chat). The outcome measure was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and per year of full capability (YFC). Both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were conducted, and missing data were handled using multiple imputation and selection models. Sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Among the 815 patients assessed for eligibility across 12 French centres, a total of 549 patients were included in the economic analysis: 186 in the Control group, 189 in the e-TPE group and 174 in the e-TPE + chat group. The e-TPE group demonstrated cost savings and slightly higher QALYs compared to the control group, making e-TPE dominant. Conversely, the e-TPE + chat intervention resulted in higher costs without substantial effectiveness gains, making it not cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: e-TPE was deemed cost-effective for ESRD patients, while e-TPE + chat was not. Web-based platforms improve ESRD management when targeted to likely users.