6 The cost-effectiveness of the Dutch In Balance fall prevention intervention | 113 Table 6.3. Cost and effect differences, ICERs and distributions on the cost-effectiveness plane for the main and sensitivity analyses. Outcomes ΔC (95%CI) ΔE (95%CI) ICER Distribution CE-plane € Unit of effect €/unit of effect NE SE SW NW Main analysis – In Balance (N= 131), Control (N= 133) Prevented fallsa -3,991 (-8,993; 1,011) 0.28 (-0.64; 1.20) - 14,329 Dominant 1% 70% 28% 1% Prevented fall-related injuriesb -3,991 (-8,987; 1,006) 0.27 (-0.14; 0.69) -14,569 Dominant 2% 89% 9% 0% QALY (EQ-5D-5L)c -3,991 (-9,012; 1,030) 0.02 (-0.03; 0.08) -168,265 Dominant 2% 79% 19% 0% QALY (ASCOT)d -3,991 (-8,999; 1,017) 0.03 (-0.002; 0.061) -135,797 Dominant 2% 96% 2% 0% SA1: Per Protocol analysis – In Balance (N= 54), Control (N= 130) Prevented fallsa -4,492 (-10,185; 1,200) 0.05 (-1.0; 1.1) -91,978 Dominant 1% 52% 45% 2% Prevented fall-related injuriesb -4,492 (-10,173; 1,189) 0.24 (-0.26; 0.74) -18,603 Dominant 2% 81% 16% 1% QALY (EQ-5D-5L)c -4,492 (-10,176; 1,192) 0.04 (-0.01; 0.1) -101.784 Dominant 3% 93% 4% 0% QALY (ASCOT)*d -4,492 (-10,184; 1,199) 0.04 (0.01; 0.08) -104,408 Dominant 3% 97% 0% 0% SA2: Healthcare perspective – In Balance (N= 131), Control (N= 133) Prevented fallsa -2,700 (-7,020; 1,619) 0.28 (-0.64; 1.19) -9,750 Dominant 4% 67% 26% 3% Prevented fall-related injuriesb -2,700 (-7,031; 1,630) 0.27 (-0.14; 0.69) -9,856 Dominant 6% 84% 9% 1% QALY (EQ-5D-5L)c -2,700 (-7,019; 1,618) 0.02 (-0.03; 0.08) -115,673 Dominant 5% 75% 18% 2% QALY (ASCOT)d -2,700 (-7,020; 1,619) 0.03 (-0.002; 0.061) -92,300 Dominant 7% 91% 2% 0% Notes. C = costs, E = effects, ICER = Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio, CE-plane = Cost-effectiveness plane, 95%CI = 95% Confidence interval, SA = sensitivity analysis, NE = Northeast, SE = Southeast, SW = Southwest, NW = Northwest, Dominant = more effective and less costly. Main analysis according to the intention-to-treat principle. a Adjusted for age, sex, physical activity and emotional wellbeing. b Adjusted for age, sex and physical activity. c Adjusted for age, sex, baseline utility and emotional wellbeing. d Adjusted for age and sex, baseline utility and emotional wellbeing. *Significantly different between groups. Sensitivity analyses Table 6.3 also presents the results for SA1 (per-protocol analysis) and SA2 (healthcare perspective). For SA1, 54 In Balance participants and 130 participants of the control group adhered to the protocol criteria and were included in the analysis. In the per protocol analysis, the cost difference was slightly larger compared to the main analysis (€-4,492 in the per protocol-analysis vs €-3,991 in the main analysis). Although the number of prevented falls
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw