Evaluating the cost, cost-effectiveness and survival of an eHealth-facilitated integrated care model for allogeneic stem cell transplantation: Results of the German SMILe randomized, controlled implementation science trial

Abstract

Purpose

eHealth-facilitated integrated care models (eICMs) have proved effective in improving outcomes for chronically ill patients. However, evidence on cost-effectiveness of eICMs is scarce so far. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) recipients' post-discharge treatment costs and mortality are greatly influenced by complications. Within the international, multicentric SMILe implementation science project, the eHealth-facilitated SMILe integrated care model (SMILe–ICM) was developed to support patients minimize complications' effects within the first year post-alloSCT.

Using initial effectiveness findings from the first center that implemented the SMILe-ICM, this study provides a cost and cost-effectiveness evaluation considering one-year and long-term survival effects, post-discharge costs, and patient-related factors.

Methods

A single-center hybrid effectiveness implementation randomized controlled trial was conducted at a German university hospital from 2/2020 to 8/2022. Eligible alloSCT patients were randomized to the SMILe–ICM or usual care, i.e., one pre-transplant educational nursing visit followed by a physician-led follow-up. The intervention group received usual care plus the SMILe-ICM's four intervention modules (i.e., monitoring of medical/symptom-related parameters, medication adherence, infection prevention, physical activity). All modules were delivered by Advanced Practice Nurses (APNs) in face-to-face visits, combined with continuous online support. Daily, patients entered seventeen medical and symptom-related parameters to the SMILe App, so that APNs could monitor for and investigate possible pre-complication signs. Healthcare utilization costs were assessed at eight time-points (d+30 post-alloSCT–d365) on fourteen self-reported cost indicators and validated against health records. To calculate costs, we applied German standardized unit costs. Cost- and cost-effectiveness were analyzed in five steps: 1.) Calculate total costs, including for the alloSCT inpatient stay and post-discharge follow-up. 2.) Determine life-years gained (survival) as a health benefit unit. 3.) Calculate overall and rehospitalization-free survival estimates. 4.) Calculate the intervention's long-term cost-effectiveness, including extended follow-up, rate of survival until day 1000, and restricted mean survival time. 5.) Contrast these long-term estimates to current post-discharge costs with comparable patient-related factors (age ≥ or < 65, living alone, gender).

Results

Seventy-two patients participated (n = 36/group). Total intergroup healthcare utilization and post-discharge costs differed, but non-significantly. Survival rates improved with the SMILe–ICM (88% vs. 80%) at least until day +1000. Rehospitalization-free survival showed improvement (38% vs. 30%); however, considering this sample size, both findings were nonsignificant. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed an overall post-discharge cost-effectiveness of 35,364.01€/patient and 6,742€/life year gained — a mean of 79.21 additional days of life for an intervention investment of 1.464€/patient in the first year post-alloSCT. One-year cost-effectiveness was highest for patients living alone. Younger age correlated with longer survival but higher costs.

Conclusion

The SMILe-ICM appears to offer survival and rehospitalization benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups, e.g., patients living alone. Larger, adequately powered studies are needed to validate these findings.