TY - JOUR AU - Del Hoyo, Javier AU - Nos, Pilar AU - Bastida, Guillermo AU - Faubel, Raquel AU - Muñoz, Diana AU - Garrido-Marín, Alejandro AU - valero - prez, Elena AU - beja - serrano, Sergio AU - Aguas, Mariam PY - 2019 DA - 20119/09/ti -克罗恩病和溃疡性结肠炎(TECCU)的远程监测:成本-效果分析远程医疗-电子健康-成本-效果-炎症性肠病-克罗恩病-结肠炎，溃疡性AB -背景:虽然电子健康干预被认为是安全有效的，但关于炎症性肠病远程监测的成本-效果的证据缺乏。目的:我们旨在评估Telemonitorización de la Enfermedad de Crohn y Colitis Ulcerosa (Telemonitoring of Crohn 's Disease and ulative Colitis [TECCU])网络平台(G_TECCU干预组)与标准护理(G_control)和护士辅助电话护理(G_NT干预组)相比用于远程监测复杂炎症性肠病的成本-效果和成本-效益。方法:我们从社会角度分析成本-效果，通过比较之前在西班牙某三级大学医院进行的一项24周随机对照试验中使用的3种随访方法。连续招募使用免疫抑制剂或生物制剂，或两者兼而有之的炎症性肠病患者来控制炎症活性。收集了对疾病活动性(使用临床指标)和质量调整生命年(使用EuroQol 5维度问卷)影响的数据。我们计算了医疗保健、设备以及患者的生产力和社会活动障碍的成本。我们比较了每位患者的平均成本、效用和自举差异。结果:纳入63例患者(每组21例)。与G_control相比，TECCU每增加一名缓解患者节省1005欧元(1100美元)(95% CI€-13,518至3137; US $–14,798 to 3434), with a 79.96% probability of being more effective at lower costs. Compared with G_NT, TECCU saved €2250 (US $2463) per additional patient in remission (95% CI €–15,363 to 11,086; US $–16,817 to 12,135), and G_NT saved €538 (US $589) compared with G_control (95% CI €–6475 to 5303; US $–7088 to 5805). G_TECCU and G_NT showed an 84% and 67% probability, respectively, of producing a cost saving per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with G_control, considering those simulations that involved negative incremental QALYs as well. Conclusions: There is a high probability that the TECCU Web platform is more cost-effective than standard and telephone care in the short term. Further research considering larger cohorts and longer time horizons is required. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02943538; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02943538 (http://www. webcitation.org/746CRRtDN) SN - 1438-8871 UR - //www.mybigtv.com/2019/9/e15505/ UR - https://doi.org/10.2196/15505 UR - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31538948 DO - 10.2196/15505 ID - info:doi/10.2196/15505 ER -