Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Remote Monitoring in Patients with Diabetes Type 2

Sahar Salehi; Alireza Olyaeemanesh; Mohammadreza Mobinizadeh; Ensieh Nasli Esfahani; Hossein Riazi; Alireza  Mahdavi Hezaveh; Mahdi Azadbakht; Elahe Bavandpour; Maryam Jamali

doi:10.18502/htaa.v5i3.9350

Sahar Salehi Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
Alireza Olyaeemanesh National Institute for Health Research and Health Equity Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Mohammadreza Mobinizadeh National Institute for Health Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Ensieh Nasli Esfahani Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Hossein Riazi Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Institute, Tehran, Iran
Alireza Mahdavi Hezaveh Center for Non-communicable Diseases Control and Prevention, Deputy for Health, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran
Mahdi Azadbakht Department of Disease Prevention and Control Group, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran
Elahe Bavandpour Department of Vice-Chancellor for Care Services, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
Maryam Jamali Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/htaa.v5i3.9350

Keywords: Remote Monitoring, Telemedicine, Type 2 Diabetes, Glycosylated Hemoglobin, HbA1c, Economic Evaluation

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to investigate the economic evaluation of remote monitoring of type 2 diabetic patients for controlling glycosylated hemoglobin, compared to routine care.

Methods: Economic evaluation was carried out to calculate the unit cost of the remote patient monitoring (RPM) technology and routine treatment for type 2 diabetics, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and sensitivity analysis using the key variables, such as population size and cost items (in five categories of equipment and devices, building, staff, overhead costs, and consumables costs).

Results: Considering the ICER in the base-case model and in comparison to the routine treatment of type 2 diabetes, the remote type 2 diabetes monitoring system was placed in the second quarter (i.e., more effective and affordable technology) of the graph as the most dominant alternative (RPM vs. routine care: Total annual cost difference: -38476.477 US$/Unit reduction in hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] difference: 0.488). The results of the sensitivity analysis revealed that in all scenarios, RPM was dominant, compared to routine treatment (the optimum ICER: -610.128 US$ per “Unit reduction in HbA1c” for the scenario with a 10% increase in the costs of the control and intervention group).

Conclusions: The RPM is a dominant alternative in comparison to routine treatment. The results indicated that the RPM interventions of 2 diabetes play an effective role in the reduction of HbA1c, which might be considered the rationale for policymakers to use this technology.