English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Telehealth is rapidly gaining ground from usual treatment, not least because of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) measures. Within rheumatology, telehealth has been used for, inter alia, follow-up for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with low disease activity or in remission. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of such a telehealth intervention. In a randomized controlled trial, 294 patients were randomized into patient-reported outcome-based telehealth follow-up by either a nurse (PRO-TN) or a rheumatologist (PRO-TR) or to conventional outpatient follow-up (control). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Individual-level healthcare and productivity costs were retrieved from national Danish registers. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for the intervention groups compared to the control group. Bootstrapping with 10 000 replications was used to obtain confidence intervals. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. The cost comparison showed that PRO-TR was significantly less costly than the control group, whereas the relative reduction in costs for PRO-TN was not significant. The telehealth groups experienced minor, non-significant declines in QALYs, whereas the control group experienced a slight, non-significant increase. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that for PRO-TR, the willingness to accept a QALY loss was 89 328 EUR. A similar but smaller and non-significant result was seen for PRO-TN. PRO-TR and PRO-TN seem to cost less but provide broadly similar health outcomes compared with conventional follow-up. Between the intervention groups, PRO-TR was significantly less costly. More studies are needed to conclude whether rheumatologist- or nurse-led telehealth is more cost-effective than conventional follow-up.

scandinavian journal of rheumatology

Cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention in rheumatoid arthritis: economic evaluation of the Telehealth in RA (TeRA) randomized controlled trial