Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Remote Monitoring in Patients With Diabetes Type 2 Publisher



Salehi S1 ; Olyaeemanesh A2 ; Mobinizadeh M3 ; Esfahani EN4 ; Riazi H5 ; Hezaveh AM6 ; Azadbakht M7 ; Bavandpour E8 ; Jamali M9
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
  2. 2. National Institute for Health Research and Health Equity Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  3. 3. National Institute for Health Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  4. 4. Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  5. 5. Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Institute, Tehran, Iran
  6. 6. Center for Non-communicable Diseases Control and Prevention, Deputy for Health, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran
  7. 7. Department of Disease Prevention and Control Group, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran
  8. 8. Department of Vice-Chancellor for Care Services, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
  9. 9. Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Source: Health Technology Assessment in Action Published:2021


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. © 2021 Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
Related Docs
1. Assessment of Remote Patient Monitoring (Rpm) Systems for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Journal of Diabetes and Metabolic Disorders (2020)
Experts (# of related papers)
View all Related Experts
Mohammadreza Mobinizadeh (1)
Ensieh Nasli Esfahani (1)