Cost-effectiveness of a specialist palliative care nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional case conference for patients with non-oncological palliative care needs: results of the KOPAL trial.

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, progressive chronic, non-malignant diseases are highly prevalent. Especially with increasing age, they are characterised by high hospitalisation rates and high healthcare costs. Improved interprofessional collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams might reduce hospitalisation while improving symptoms and quality of life, or preventing them from deterioration. The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of a newly developed intervention in patients with advanced chronic, non-malignant diseases consisting of a structured palliative care nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional telephone case conference.

METHODS

The analysis was based on data from 172 participants of the KOPAL multi-centre, cluster randomised controlled trial. Patients with advanced congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or dementia were randomised into intervention group (IG) and control group (CG, usual care). Cost-effectiveness was examined over 48 weeks from a societal and healthcare payer's perspective. Effects were quantified as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, EQ-5D-5L). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed.

RESULTS

Baseline imbalances in costs and effects could be observed between IG and CG. After adjusting for these imbalances and compared to the CG, mean costs in the IG were non-significantly higher from a societal and lower from a payer's perspective. On the effect side, the IG had marginally lower mean QALYs. The results were characterized by high statistical uncertainty, indicated by large confidence intervals for the cost and effect differences between groups and probabilities of cost-effectiveness between 18% and 65%, depending on the perspective and willingness-to-pay.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this study, the cost-effectiveness of the KOPAL intervention was uncertain. The results highlighted (methodological) challenges of economic evaluations in patients with chronic, non-malignant diseases related to sample size, heterogeneity of participants, and the way the intervention effectiveness is typically captured in economic evaluations.