The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 671–681 | Cite as

Cost-effectiveness of nurse-based case management versus usual care for elderly patients with myocardial infarction: results from the KORINNA study

  • Hildegard SeidlEmail author
  • Matthias Hunger
  • Reiner Leidl
  • Christa Meisinger
  • Rupert Wende
  • Bernhard Kuch
  • Rolf Holle
Original Paper



We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a case management intervention by trained nurses in elderly (≥65 years) patients with myocardial infarction from a societal perspective.


The intervention and observation period spanned 1 year and 329 participants were enrolled. The intervention consisted of at least one home visit and quarterly telephone calls. Data on resource use and quality of life were collected quarterly. The primary measurements of effect were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), based on the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) health utilities from the German time trade-off. The secondary measurements were EQ-5D-3L utility values and patients’ self-rated health states according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) among survivors. To estimate mean differences, a linear regression model was used for QALYs and a gamma model for costs. Health states among the survivors were analysed using linear mixed models. To assess the impact of different health state valuation methods, VAS-adjusted life years were constructed.


The mean difference in QALYs was small and not significant (−0.0163; CI −0.0681–0.0354, p value: 0.536, n = 297). Among survivors, EQ-5D-3L utilities showed significant improvements within 6 months in the intervention group (0.051; CI 0.0028–0.0989; p value: 0.0379, n = 280) but returned towards baseline levels by month 12. The mean improvement in self-rated health (VAS) within 1 year was significantly larger in the intervention group (+9.2, CI 4.665–13.766, p value: <0.0001, n = 266). The overall cost difference was −€17.61 (CI − €2,601–€2,615; p value: 0.9856, n = 297). The difference in VAS-adjusted life years was 0.0378 (CI −0.0040–0.0796, p value: 0.0759, n = 297).


This study could not provide evidence to conclude that the case management intervention was an effective and cost-effective alternative to usual care within a time horizon of 1 year.


Cost-effectiveness analysis Quality-adjusted life years Case management Myocardial infarction Elderly 

JEL Classification

I120 Health production 



The KORA research platform (KORA, Cooperative Research in the Region of Augsburg) was initiated and financed by the Helmholtz Zentrum München—German Research Center for Environmental Health, which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and by the State of Bavaria. The KORA-Age project was financed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF FKZ 01ET0713) as part of the ‘Health in old age’ programme. We thank all members of the Helmholtz Zentrum München who were involved in the conduct of the study. Furthermore, we wish to thank the field staff in Augsburg, especially Barbara Dick, Claudia Greschik, Birgit Kling, Dorothea Lukitsch, Sonja Reiserer, and Gisela Sietas.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization: The top 10 causes of death Accessed 15 Oct 2013
  2. 2.
    Mannsverk, J., Wilsgaard, T., Njolstad, I., Hopstock, L.A., Lochen, M.L., Mathiesen, E.B., Thelle, D.S., Rasmussen, K., Bonaa, K.H.: Age and gender differences in incidence and case fatality trends for myocardial infarction: a 30-year follow-up. The Tromso Study. Eur J Prev cardiol 19(5), 927–934 (2012)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robert Koch Institute, Telephone Health Survey (GEDA): Coronary heart diseases, diagnosed by a physician. Accessed May 2014
  4. 4.
    Fleg, J.L., Forman, D.E., Berra, K., Bittner, V., Blumenthal, J.A., Chen, M.A., Cheng, S., Kitzman, D.W., Maurer, M.S., Rich, M.W., Shen, W.K., Williams, M.A., Zieman, S.J.: Secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in older adults: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circ 128(22), 2422–2446 (2013). doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000436752.99896.22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kotseva, K., Wood, D., De Backer, G., De Bacquer, D.: Use and effects of cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary heart disease: results from the EUROASPIRE III survey. Eur J Prev Cardiol 20(5), 817–826 (2013). doi: 10.1177/2047487312449591 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark, A.M., Haykowsky, M., Kryworuchko, J., MacClure, T., Scott, J., DesMeules, M., Luo, W., Liang, Y., McAlister, F.A.: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials of home-based secondary prevention programs for coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 17(3), 261–270 (2010)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McAlister, F.A., Lawson, F.M., Teo, K.K., Armstrong, P.W.: A systematic review of randomized trials of disease management programs in heart failure. Am. J. Med. 110(5), 378–384 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schadewaldt, V., Schultz, T.: Nurse-led clinics as an effective service for cardiac patients: results from a systematic review. Int J Evid-Based Healthc 9(3), 199–214 (2011). doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2011.00217.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stolic, S., Mitchell, M., Wollin, J.: Nurse-led telephone interventions for people with cardiac disease: a review of the research literature. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 9(4), 203–217 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2010.02.003 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raftery, J.P., Yao, G.L., Murchie, P., Campbell, N.C., Ritchie, L.D.: Cost effectiveness of nurse-led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease in primary care: follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 330(7493), 707 (2005). doi: 10.1136/bmj.38342.665417.8F PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turkstra, E., Hawkes, A.L., Oldenburg, B., Scuffham, P.A.: Cost-effectiveness of a coronary heart disease secondary prevention program in patients with myocardial infarction: results from a randomised controlled trial (ProActive Heart). BMC Cardiovasc Disord 13(1), 33 (2013). doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-13-33 18PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turner, D.A., Paul, S., Stone, M.A., Juarez-Garcia, A., Squire, I., Khunti, K.: Cost-effectiveness of a disease management programme for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and heart failure in primary care. Heart 94(12), 1601–1606 (2008). doi: 10.1136/hrt.2007.125708 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hebert, P.L., Sisk, J.E., Wang, J.J., Tuzzio, L., Casabianca, J.M., Chassin, M.R., Horowitz, C., McLaughlin, M.A.: Cost-effectiveness of nurse-led disease management for heart failure in an ethnically diverse urban community. Ann. Intern. Med. 149(8), 540–548 (2008)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Postmus, D., Pari, A.A., Jaarsma, T., Luttik, M.L., van Veldhuisen, D.J., Hillege, H.L., Buskens, E.: A trial-based economic evaluation of 2 nurse-led disease management programs in heart failure. Am. Heart J. 162(6), 1096–1104 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2011.09.019 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith, B., Hughes-Cromwick, P.F., Forkner, E., Galbreath, A.D.: Cost-effectiveness of telephonic disease management in heart failure. Am J Manag Care 14(2), 106–115 (2008). Pii: 7020PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirchberger, I., Meisinger, C., Seidl, H., Wende, R., Kuch, B., Holle, R.: Nurse-based case management for aged patients with myocardial infarction: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. BMC geriatr 10, 29 (2010)PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meisinger, C., Stollenwerk, B., Kirchberger, I., Seidl, H., Wende, R., Kuch, B., Holle, R.: Effects of a nurse-based case management compared to usual care among aged patients with myocardial infarction: results from the randomized controlled KORINNA study. BMC Geriatr 13(1), 115 (2013). doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-13-115 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hunger, M., Kirchberger, I., Holle, R., Seidl, H., Kuch, B., Wende, R., Meisinger, C.: Does nurse-based case management for aged myocardial infarction patients improve risk factors, physical functioning and mental health? The KORINNA trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol (2014). doi: 10.1177/2047487314524682 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stark, R., Kirchberger, I., Hunger, M., Heier, M., Leidl, R., von Scheidt, W., Meisinger, C., Holle, R.: Improving care of post-infarct patients: effects of disease management programmes and care according to international guidelines. Clini Res Cardiol:Off J Ger Card Soc. 103(3), 237–245 (2014). doi: 10.1007/s00392-013-0643-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nowels, D., McGloin, J., Westfall, J.M., Holcomb, S.: Validation of the EQ-5D quality of life instrument in patients after myocardial infarction. Qual. Life Res. 14(1), 95–105 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schweikert, B., Hahmann, H., Leidl, R.: Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation. Heart 92(1), 62–67 (2006). doi: 10.1136/hrt.2004.052787 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Russell, K., Freeman, A., Blue, L., Stewart, S.: a blueprint for identifying and managing patients within a heart failure Service. 2nd eds. In: Improving Outcomes in Chronic Heart Failure: Specialist Nurse Intervention from Research to Practice. BMJ Publishing Group, London (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Greiner, W., Claes, C., Busschbach, J.J., von der Schulenburg, J.M.: Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ 6(2), 124–130 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Torrance, G.W., O’Brien, B.J., Stoddart, G.L.: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005) 19Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goossens, M.E.: Rutten-van Molken, M.P., Vlaeyen, J.W., van der Linden, S.M.: The cost diary: a method to measure direct and indirect costs in cost-effectiveness research. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 53(7), 688–695 (2000). Pii: S0895435699001778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seidl, H., Meisinger, C., Wende, R., Holle, R.: Empirical analysis shows reduced cost data collection may be an efficient method in economic clinical trials. BMC Health Serv Res 12, 318 (2012). doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-318 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krauth, C., Hessel, F., Hansmeier, T., Wasem, J., Seitz, R., Schweikert, B.: Empirical standard costs for health economic evaluation in Germany—a proposal by the working group methods in health economic evaluation. Gesundheitswesen 67(10), 736–746 (2005). doi: 10.1055/s-2005-858698 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    GKV-Heilmittel-Informationssystem. (Accessed 12 Jan 2013)
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Mühlberger, N., Behrend, C., Stark, R., Holle, R.: Database-supported identification and entry of drug data in health studies—experience with the IDOM software [Datenbankgestützte Online-Erfassung von Arzneimitteln im Rahmen gesundheitswissenschaftlicher Studien Erfahrungen mit der IDOM-Software] in German. Inform Biom Epidemiol Med Biol 34(4), 601–611 (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wissenschaftliches Institut der AOK. Accessed 15 January 2013
  34. 34.
    Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB), Elftes Buch (XI), Soziale Pflegeversicherung. Accessed 15 Apr 2011
  35. 35.
    Manca, A., Hawkins, N., Sculpher, M.J.: Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ. 14(5), 487–496 (2005). doi: 10.1002/hec.944 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kahan, B.C., Morris, T.P.: Improper analysis of trials randomised using stratified blocks or minimisation. Stat. Med. 31(4), 328–340 (2012). doi: 10.1002/sim.4431 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Molenberghs, G., Kenward, M.G.: Missing data in clinical studies. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, UK (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dodd, S., Bassi, A., Bodger, K., Williamson, P.: A comparison of multivariable regression models to analyse cost data. J Eval Clin Pract 12(1), 76–86 (2006). doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00610.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Glick, H., Doshi, J.A., Sonnad, S.S., Polsky, D.: Economic evaluation in clinical trials. In: Gray, A., Briggs, A. (eds.) Handbooks in health economic evaluation series. Oxford University Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Graubard, B.I., Korn, E.L.: Predictive margins with survey data. Biometrics 55(2), 652–659 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Petrou, S., Carswell, C., Moher, D., Greenberg, D., Augustovski, F., Briggs, A.H., Mauskopf, J., Loder, E.: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)–explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Val Health 16(2), 231–250 (2013). doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Briggs, A.H., Lozano-Ortega, G., Spencer, S., Bale, G., Spencer, M.D., Burge, P.S.: Estimating the cost-effectiveness of fluticasone propionate for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the presence of missing data. Val Health 9(4), 227–235 (2006). doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00106.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Horton, N.J., SR, L.: Multiple imputation in practice: comparison of software packages for regression models with missing variables. Am Statistician 55, 244–254 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ramsey, S., Willke, R., Briggs, A., Brown, R., Buxton, M., Chawla, A., Cook, J., Glick, H., Liljas, B., Petitti, D., Reed, S.: Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Val Health 8(5), 521–533 (2005). doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00045.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sahlen, K.G., Lofgren, C., Brodin, H., Dahlgren, L., Lindholm, L.: Measuring the value of older peopleʼs production: a diary study. BMC Health Serv Res 12, 4 (2012). doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-4 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Leidl, R., Reitmeir, P.: A value set for the EQ-5D based on experienced health states: development and testing for the German population. Pharmacoecon 29(6), 521–534 (2011). doi: 10.2165/11538380-000000000-00000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Broome, J.: QALYs. J public econ 50, 149–167 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dolan, P., Kahneman, D.: Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Econ. J. 118(525), 215–234 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Parkin, D., Devlin, N.: Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis? Health Econ. 15(7), 653–664 (2006). doi: 10.1002/hec.1086 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hawkes, A.L., Atherton, J., Taylor, C.B., Scuffham, P., Eadie, K., Miller, N.H., Oldenburg, B.: Randomised controlled trial of a secondary prevention program for myocardial infarction patients ('ProActive Heart'): study protocol. Secondary prevention program for myocardial infarction patients. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 9, 16 (2009). doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-9-16 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hildegard Seidl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthias Hunger
    • 1
  • Reiner Leidl
    • 1
  • Christa Meisinger
    • 2
    • 3
  • Rupert Wende
    • 4
  • Bernhard Kuch
    • 5
  • Rolf Holle
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Health Economics and Health Care ManagementHelmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH)NeuherbergGermany
  2. 2.KORA Myocardial Infarction RegistryCentral Hospital of AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Epidemiology IIHelmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health (GmbH)NeuherbergGermany
  4. 4.Department of Internal Medicine I/CardiologyCentral Hospital of AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  5. 5.Department for Internal Medicine/CardiologyDonau-Ries-KlinikenNördlingenGermany

Personalised recommendations