Cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led internet-based vascular risk factor management programme: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of an internet-based, nurse-led vascular risk factor management programme in addition to usual care compared with usual care alone in patients with a clinical manifestation of a vascular disease. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (the Internet-based vascular Risk factor Intervention and Self-management (IRIS) study). SETTING: Multicentre trial in a secondary and tertiary healthcare setting. PARTICIPANTS: 330 patients with a recent clinical manifestation of atherosclerosis in the coronary, cerebral, or peripheral arteries and with ≥2 treatable vascular risk factors not at goal. INTERVENTION: The intervention consisted of a personalised website with an overview and actual status of patients' vascular risk factors, and mail communication with a nurse practitioner via the website for 12 months. The intervention combined self-management support, monitoring of disease control and pharmacotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Societal costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Patients experienced equal health benefits, that is, 0.86 vs 0.85 QALY (intervention vs usual care) at 1 year. Adjusting for baseline differences, the incremental QALY difference was -0.014 (95% CI -0.034 to 0.007). The intervention was associated with lower total costs (€4859 vs €5078, difference €219, 95% CI -€2301 to €1825). The probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a threshold value of €20,000/QALY, is 65%. At mean annual cost of €220 per patient, the intervention is relatively cheap. CONCLUSIONS: An internet-based, nurse-led intervention in addition to usual care to improve vascular risk factors in patients with a clinical manifestation of a vascular disease does not result in a QALY gain at 1 year, but has a small effect on vascular risk factors and is associated with lower costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00785031.

Internet based vascular risk factor management for patients with clinically manifest vascular disease: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether an internet based, nurse led vascular risk factor management programme promoting self management on top of usual care is more effective than usual care alone in reducing vascular risk factors in patients with clinically manifest vascular disease. DESIGN: Prospective randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Multicentre trial in secondary and tertiary healthcare setting. PARTICIPANTS: 330 patients with a recent clinical manifestation of atherosclerosis in the coronary, cerebral, or peripheral arteries and with at least two treatable risk factors not at goal. INTERVENTION: Personalised website with an overview and actual status of patients' risk factors and mail communication via the website with a nurse practitioner for 12 months; the intervention combined self management support, monitoring of disease control, and drug treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the relative change in Framingham heart risk score after 1 year. Secondary endpoints were absolute changes in the levels of risk factors and the differences between groups in the change in proportion of patients reaching treatment goals for each risk factor. RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 59.9 (SD 8.4) years, and most patients (n=246; 75%) were male. After 1 year, the relative change in Framingham heart risk score of the intervention group compared with the usual care group was -14% (95% confidence interval -25% to -2%). At baseline, the Framingham heart risk score was higher in the intervention group than in the usual care group (16.1 (SD 10.6) v 14.0 (10.5)), so the outcome was adjusted for the separate variables of the Framingham heart risk score and for the baseline Framingham heart risk score. This produced a relative change of -12% (-22% to -3%) in Framingham heart risk score for the intervention group compared with the usual care group adjusted for the separate variables of the score and -8% (-18% to 2%) adjusted for the baseline score. Of the individual risk factors, a difference between groups was observed in low density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.3, -0.5 to -0.1, mmol/L) and smoking (-7.7%, -14.9% to -0.4%). Some other risk factors tended to improve (body mass index, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, renal function) or tended to worsen (glucose concentration, albuminuria). CONCLUSION: An internet based, nurse led treatment programme on top of usual care for vascular risk factors had a small effect on lowering vascular risk and on lowering of some vascular risk factors in patients with vascular disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials NCT00785031.