Analysis* | Sample size, n | Outcome† | ΔC, € (95% CI)‡ | ΔE, point (95% CI) | ICER, €/point | Distribution on CE plane; (%) | ||||
Pre | DD | NE | SE | SW | NW | |||||
Main analysis | 141 | 148 | Generic HR-QoL (0–1)§ | −845 (−1781 to −88) | 0.03 (−0.01 to 0.08) | −26 022 | 0.07 | 0.87 | 0.06 | 0.00 |
141 | 148 | Disease-specific HR-QoL (0–100)¶ | −852 (−1777 to −96) | 4.4 (−1.1 to 9.9) | −193 | 0.07 | 0.88 | 0.05 | 0.00 | |
144 | 153 | Treatment satisfaction (0–10) | −821 (−1711 to −75) | −0.16 (−0.53 to 0.21) | 5213 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.74 | 0.01 | |
144 | 153 | Pain (0–10) | −822 (−1710 to −77) | 0.08 (−0.37 to 0.52) | −10 517 | 0.07 | 0.61 | 0.32 | 0.00 | |
SA1: healthcare perspective | 141 | 148 | Generic HR-QoL (0–1)§ | −169 (−206 to −130) | 0.03 (−0.01 to 0.08) | −5190 | 0.06 | 0.88 | 0.05 | 0.00 |
141 | 148 | Disease-specific HR-QoL (0–100)¶ | −169 (−206 to −130) | 4.4 (−1.1 to 9.9) | −38 | 0.06 | 0.89 | 0.05 | 0.00 | |
144 | 153 | Treatment satisfaction (0–10) | −168 (−206 to −132) | −0.16 (−0.53 to 0.21) | 1068 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.75 | 0.00 | |
144 | 153 | Pain (0–10) | −168 (−206 to −132) | 0.08 (−0.37 to 0.52) | −2153 | 0.05 | 0.62 | 0.33 | 0.00 | |
SA2: absenteeism costs valued using age-specific and gender-specific price weights | 141 | 148 | Generic HR-QoL (0–1)§ | −721 (−1666 to 6) | 0.03 (−0.01 to 0.08) | −22 203 | 0.09 | 0.85 | 0.06 | 0.00 |
141 | 148 | Disease-specific HR-QoL (0–100)¶ | −729 (−1587 to 36) | 4.4 (−1.1 to 9.9) | −162 | 0.09 | 0.86 | 0.05 | 0.00 | |
144 | 153 | Treatment satisfaction (0–10) | −700 (−1567 to 33) | −0.16 (−0.53 to 0.21) | 4445 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.72 | 0.03 | |
144 | 153 | Pain (0–10) | −701 (−1566 to 33) | 0.08 (−0.37 to 0.52) | −8969 | 0.09 | 0.59 | 0.32 | 0.00 | |
SA3: propensity score including education level | 141 | 148 | Generic HR-QoL (0–1)§ | −758 (−1732 to 53) | 0.03 (−0.01 to 0.07) | −24 045 | 0.09 | 0.84 | 0.06 | 0.01 |
141 | 148 | Disease-specific HR-QoL (0–100)¶ | −762 (−1736 to 46) | 3.44 (−2.06 to 8.93) | −222 | 0.09 | 0.81 | 0.09 | 0.01 | |
144 | 153 | Treatment satisfaction (0–10) | −741 (−1661 to 35) | −0.12 (−0.49 to 0.24) | 6065 | 0.07 | 0.23 | 0.67 | 0.03 | |
144 | 153 | Pain (0–10) | −741 (−1664 to 35) | 0.07 (−0.37 to 0.52) | −9883 | 0.08 | 0.58 | 0.33 | 0.01 |
*Main analysis: SA2 and SA3 were adjusted for propensity score and work status (yes/no), whereas SA1 was adjusted for propensity score only.
†Higher value indicates better outcome.
‡All costs are expressed in Euros 2019.35 36
§Assessed in participants ≥4 years old using the EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire.26 27
¶Assessed in participants ≥4 years old using four different validated functional outcome questionnaires,30–33 all converted to a 0–100 scale for comparison.34
∆C, difference in costs; CE plane, cost-effectiveness plane; DD, direct discharge; ∆E, difference in effects; HR-QoL, health-related quality of life; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; NE, northeast quadrant of the CE plane, indicating that DD is more effective and more costly than standard care; NW, northwest quadrant of the CE plane, indicating that DD is less effective and more costly than standard care; SA, sensitivity analysis; SE, southeast quadrant of the CE plane, indicating that DD is more effective and less costly than standard care; SW, southwest quadrant of the CE plane, indicating that DD is less effective and less costly than standard care.