Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30729350›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2019

Cost-effectiveness analysis of case management for optimized antithrombotic treatment in German general practices compared to usual care - results from the PICANT trial.

Lisa R Ulrich, Juliana J Petersen, Karola Mergenthal, Andrea Berghold, Gudrun Pregartner, Rolf Holle, Andrea Siebenhofer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Clinical service organisation for adults with atrial fibrillation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lisa R UlrichInstitute of General Practice, Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Juliana J PetersenInstitute of General Practice, Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Karola MergenthalInstitute of General Practice, Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany.
Andrea BergholdInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Gudrun PregartnerInstitute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Rolf HolleHelmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Neuherberg, Germany.
Andrea SiebenhoferInstitute of General Practice, Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany. andrea.siebenhofer@medunigraz.at.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GY1145
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBy performing case management, general practitioners and health care assistants can provide additional benefits to their chronically ill patients. However, the economic effects of such case management interventions often remain unclear although how to manage the burden of chronic disease is a key question for policy-makers. This analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 24 months of primary care case management for patients with a long-term indication for oral anticoagulation therapy with usual care.

methodsThis analysis is part of the cluster-randomized controlled Primary Care Management for Optimized Antithrombotic Treatment (PICANT) trial. A sample of 680 patients with German statutory health insurance was initially considered for the cost analysis (92% of all participants at baseline). Costs included all disease-related direct health care costs from the payer's perspective (German statutory health insurers) plus case management costs for the intervention group. A-Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) measurement (EQ-5D-3 L instrument) was used to evaluate utility, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to assess cost-effectiveness. Mean differences were calculated and displayed with 95%-confidence intervals (CI) from non-parametric bootstrapping (1000 replicates).

resultsN = 505 patients (505/680, 74%) were included in the cost analysis (complete case analysis with a follow-up after 12 and 24 months as well as information on cost and QALY). After two years, the mean difference of direct health care costs per patient (€115, 95% CI [- 201; 406]) and QALYs (0.03, 95% CI [- 0.04; 0.11]) in the two groups was small and not significant. The costs of case management in the intervention group caused mean total costs per patient in this group to rise significantly (mean difference €503, 95% CI [188; 794]). The ICER was €16,767 per QALY. Regardless of the willingness of insurers to pay per QALY, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective never rose above 70%.

conclusionsA primary care case management for patients with a long-term indication for oral anticoagulation therapy improved QALYs compared to usual care, but was more costly. However, the results may help professionals and policy-makers allocate scarce health care resources in such a way that the overall quality of care is improved at moderate costs, particularly for chronically ill patients.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN41847489 .

Indexed as

Anticoagulants [MeSH]Case management [MeSH]Chronic disease [MeSH]Cost-effectiveness analysisHealth services research [MeSH]Primary health care [MeSH]

Identifiers

PMID30729350
PMCPMC6734317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.