Table 3

Differences in costs and effects, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and cost-effectiveness planes

Analysis*Sample size, nOutcome†ΔC, € (95% CI)‡ΔE, point (95% CI)ICER, €/pointDistribution on CE plane; (%)
PreDDNESESWNW
Main analysis141148Generic HR-QoL (0–1)§−845 (−1781 to −88)0.03 (−0.01 to 0.08)−26 0220.070.870.060.00
141148Disease-specific HR-QoL (0–100)¶−852 (−1777 to −96)4.4 (−1.1 to 9.9)−1930.070.880.050.00
144153Treatment satisfaction (0–10)−821 (−1711 to −75)−0.16 (−0.53 to 0.21)52130.060.190.740.01
144153Pain (0–10)−822 (−1710 to −77)0.08 (−0.37 to 0.52)−10 5170.070.610.320.00
SA1: healthcare perspective141148Generic HR-QoL (0–1)§−169 (−206 to −130)0.03 (−0.01 to 0.08)−51900.060.880.050.00
141148Disease-specific HR-QoL (0–100)¶−169 (−206 to −130)4.4 (−1.1 to 9.9)−380.060.890.050.00
144153Treatment satisfaction (0–10)−168 (−206 to −132)−0.16 (−0.53 to 0.21)10680.060.190.750.00
144153Pain (0–10)−168 (−206 to −132)0.08 (−0.37 to 0.52)−21530.050.620.330.00
SA2: absenteeism costs valued using age-specific and gender-specific price weights141148Generic HR-QoL (0–1)§−721 (−1666 to 6)0.03 (−0.01 to 0.08)−22 2030.090.850.060.00
141148Disease-specific HR-QoL (0–100)¶−729 (−1587 to 36)4.4 (−1.1 to 9.9)−1620.090.860.050.00
144153Treatment satisfaction (0–10)−700 (−1567 to 33)−0.16 (−0.53 to 0.21)44450.060.190.720.03
144153Pain (0–10)−701 (−1566 to 33)0.08 (−0.37 to 0.52)−89690.090.590.320.00
SA3: propensity score including education level141148Generic HR-QoL (0–1)§−758 (−1732 to 53)0.03 (−0.01 to 0.07)−24 0450.090.840.060.01
141148Disease-specific HR-QoL (0–100)¶−762 (−1736 to 46)3.44 (−2.06 to 8.93)−2220.090.810.090.01
144153Treatment satisfaction (0–10)−741 (−1661 to 35)−0.12 (−0.49 to 0.24)60650.070.230.670.03
144153Pain (0–10)−741 (−1664 to 35)0.07 (−0.37 to 0.52)−98830.080.580.330.01
  • *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.