IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0121340.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of a Specialist Geriatric Medical Intervention for Frail Older People Discharged from Acute Medical Units: Economic Evaluation in a Two-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial (AMIGOS)

Author

Listed:
  • Lukasz Tanajewski
  • Matthew Franklin
  • Georgios Gkountouras
  • Vladislav Berdunov
  • Judi Edmans
  • Simon Conroy
  • Lucy E Bradshaw
  • John R F Gladman
  • Rachel A Elliott

Abstract

Background: Poor outcomes and high resource-use are observed for frail older people discharged from acute medical units. A specialist geriatric medical intervention, to facilitate Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, was developed to reduce the incidence of adverse outcomes and associated high resource-use in this group in the post-discharge period. Objective: To examine the costs and cost-effectiveness of a specialist geriatric medical intervention for frail older people in the 90 days following discharge from an acute medical unit, compared with standard care. Methods: Economic evaluation was conducted alongside a two-centre randomised controlled trial (AMIGOS). 433 patients (aged 70 or over) at risk of future health problems, discharged from acute medical units within 72 hours of attending hospital, were recruited in two general hospitals in Nottingham and Leicester, UK. Participants were randomised to the intervention, comprising geriatrician assessment in acute units and further specialist management, or to control where patients received no additional intervention over and above standard care. Primary outcome was incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Results: We undertook cost-effectiveness analysis for 417 patients (intervention: 205). The difference in mean adjusted QALYs gained between groups at 3 months was -0.001 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.009, 0.007). Total adjusted secondary and social care costs, including direct costs of the intervention, at 3 months were £4412 (€5624, $6878) and £4110 (€5239, $6408) for the intervention and standard care groups, the incremental cost was £302 (95% CI: 193, 410) [€385, $471]. The intervention was dominated by standard care with probability of 62%, and with 0% probability of cost-effectiveness (at £20,000/QALY threshold). Conclusions: The specialist geriatric medical intervention for frail older people discharged from acute medical unit was not cost-effective. Further research on designing effective and cost-effective specialist service for frail older people discharged from acute medical units is needed. Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN21800480 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21800480

Suggested Citation

  • Lukasz Tanajewski & Matthew Franklin & Georgios Gkountouras & Vladislav Berdunov & Judi Edmans & Simon Conroy & Lucy E Bradshaw & John R F Gladman & Rachel A Elliott, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness of a Specialist Geriatric Medical Intervention for Frail Older People Discharged from Acute Medical Units: Economic Evaluation in a Two-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial (AMIGOS)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0121340
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121340
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121340
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121340&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0121340?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2001. "Representing uncertainty: the role of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 779-787, December.
    2. Jeffrey S. Hoch & Andrew H. Briggs & Andrew R. Willan, 2002. "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 415-430, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stephen Rocks & Daniela Berntson & Alejandro Gil-Salmerón & Mudathira Kadu & Nieves Ehrenberg & Viktoria Stein & Apostolos Tsiachristas, 2020. "Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1211-1221, November.
    2. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrea Manca & Neil Hawkins & Mark J. Sculpher, 2005. "Estimating mean QALYs in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 487-496, May.
    2. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    3. Nicholas Graves & Mary Courtney & Helen Edwards & Anne Chang & Anthony Parker & Kathleen Finlayson, 2009. "Cost-Effectiveness of an Intervention to Reduce Emergency Re-Admissions to Hospital among Older Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-9, October.
    4. Elamin H. Elbasha, 2005. "Risk aversion and uncertainty in cost‐effectiveness analysis: the expected‐utility, moment‐generating function approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 457-470, May.
    5. Francisco-José Polo & Miguel Negrín & Xavier Badía & Montse Roset, 2005. "Bayesian regression models for cost-effectiveness analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(1), pages 45-52, March.
    6. Andrea Manca & Nigel Rice & Mark J. Sculpher & Andrew H. Briggs, 2005. "Assessing generalisability by location in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the use of multilevel models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 471-485, May.
    7. Hoch, Jeffrey S. & Blume, Jeffrey D., 2008. "Measuring and illustrating statistical evidence in a cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 476-495, March.
    8. Sennen Hounton & David Newlands, 2012. "Applying the Net-Benefit Framework for Analyzing and Presenting Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Maternal and Newborn Health Intervention," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-8, July.
    9. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    10. Abualbishr Alshreef & Allan J. Wailoo & Steven R. Brown & James P. Tiernan & Angus J. M. Watson & Katie Biggs & Mike Bradburn & Daniel Hind, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness of Haemorrhoidal Artery Ligation versus Rubber Band Ligation for the Treatment of Grade II–III Haemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence from the HubBLe Trial," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 175-184, September.
    11. Jasjeet Singh Sekhon & Richard D. Grieve, 2012. "A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost‐effectiveness analyses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 695-714, June.
    12. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    13. Neil Hawkins & Mark Sculpher & David Epstein, 2005. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatments for Chronic Disease: Using R to Incorporate Time Dependency of Treatment Response," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 511-519, September.
    14. A. Gafni & S. D. Walter & S. Birch & P. Sendi, 2008. "An opportunity cost approach to sample size calculation in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 99-107, January.
    15. Tzeyu L. Michaud & Robert L. Kane & J. Riley McCarten & Joseph E. Gaugler & John A. Nyman & Karen M. Kuntz, 2018. "Using Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarker Testing to Target Treatment to Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 309-323, September.
    16. Alejandro Arrieta & Timothy F Page & Emir Veledar & Khurram Nasir, 2017. "Economic Evaluation of PCSK9 Inhibitors in Reducing Cardiovascular Risk from Health System and Private Payer Perspectives," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, January.
    17. McKenna, Claire & Chalabi, Zaid & Epstein, David & Claxton, Karl, 2010. "Budgetary policies and available actions: A generalisation of decision rules for allocation and research decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 170-181, January.
    18. John Hutton, 2012. "‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 13-18, January.
    19. Martin Henriksson & Fredrik Lundgren & Per Carlsson, 2006. "Informing the efficient use of health care and health care research resources ‐ the case of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1311-1322, December.
    20. Christian Brettschneider & Sebastian Kohlmann & Benjamin Gierk & Bernd Löwe & Hans-Helmut König, 2017. "Depression screening with patient-targeted feedback in cardiology: The cost-effectiveness of DEPSCREEN-INFO," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-15, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0121340. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.