Telerehabilitation after total knee replacement in Italy: cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a mixed telerehabilitation-standard rehabilitation programme compared with usual care.

Change log
Turchetti, Giuseppe 

OBJECTIVES: To assess cost-effectiveness and cost utility of telerehabilitation (TR) versus standard rehabilitation (SR) after total knee replacement (TKR). DESIGN: Markov decision modelling of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis based on patient-level and secondary data sources employing Italian National Health Service (NHS; Ita-NHS) and Society perspectives. SETTING: Primary care units (PCUs) in Italy. PARTICIPANTS: Patients discharged after TKR. INTERVENTIONS: Mixed SR-TR service (10 face-to-face sessions and 10 telesessions) versus SR (20 face-to-face sessions) PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The incremental cost per additional knee flexion range of motion (ROM) and per QALY gained by SR-TR compared with SR. Second, we considered the probability of being cost-effective and the probability of being more effective and less expensive. RESULTS: TR appears to be the cost-effective in the base case and in all of the considered scenarios, but is no longer more effective and less expensive if transportation costs are excluded. Comparing SR-TR with SR, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) adopting the Ita-NHS perspective for the base case was -€117/ROM gained. The cost-effectiveness probability for SR-TR was 0.98 (ceiling ratio: €50/ROM), while the joint probability of being more effective and less expensive was 0.87. Assuming that TR would increase health-related quality of life (HRQOL) utilities by 2.5%, the ICER adopting Ita-NHS perspective is -€960/QALY (cost-effectiveness probability: 1; ceiling ratio: €30 000/QALY). All the performed sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions, but if transportation costs were excluded, the probability for SR-TR of being more clinically effective and less expensive reduced to 0.56. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis suggested SR-TR to be cost-effective, even less expensive and more effective if the PCUs provide ambulance transportations. However, the uncertainty related to TR costs, HRQOL and long-term clinical outcomes raises important topics for future research, which should be addressed to confirm our estimates. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN45837371.

HEALTH ECONOMICS, REHABILITATION MEDICINE, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Italy, Male, Markov Chains, Models, Economic, Physical Therapy Modalities, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Primary Health Care, Program Evaluation, Quality of Life, Telerehabilitation, Treatment Outcome
Journal Title
BMJ Open
Conference Name
Journal ISSN
Volume Title