Continuous Monitoring of Respiratory Rate with Wearable Sensor in Patients Admitted to Hospital with Pneumonia Compared with Intermittent Nurse-Led Monitoring in the United Kingdom: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Background Respiratory rate (RR) is one of the most important physiologic measures for predicting patients’ deterioration of clinical condition and final prognosis. In several studies, RR has been the most important predictor of patients’ prognoses. Objectives The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis to estimate the cost and effectiveness of automatic respiratory rate monitoring (ARRM) with a non-invasive sensor (RespiraSense™) plus intermittent nurse-led RR monitoring (ARRM strategy) compared with intermittent nurse-led RR monitoring (IM strategy) in patients admitted to hospital in the UK with pneumonia. Methods A decision analytic model was developed based on a hypothetical cohort of patients who were admitted to hospital with pneumonia. After admission, the patients could be monitored with either ARRM or IM strategies. The outcomes of interest included total costs and total effectiveness of each strategy, including length of stay (LoS) in hospital, LoS in intensive care unit, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), deaths, and incremental cost per QALY gained. An incremental cost of £20,000 or less per QALY gained was considered cost effective. A lifetime time horizon (38 years) was used to capture the long-term benefits. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Total costs of patient care in ARRM and IM strategies were £1986.9 million and £2079.4 million, respectively. Total incremental QALYs lived were 3548 higher in the intervention arm (ARRM), meaning that the ARRM strategy was dominant (i.e., less costly [£92.6 million less] and more effective). The results were stable in probabilistic and most of the deterministic sensitivity analyses. Results from threshold analysis indicated that a minimum of 7 and 10% improvement in percentage of early detection of respiratory compromise is required for ARRM to become cost effective and cost saving, respectively. Conclusions Our results indicate that ARRM using RespiraSense, in addition to intermittent nurse-led monitoring of RR, in patients admitted to the hospital with pneumonia could be a cost-saving and cost-effective intervention if the minimum clinical thresholds are met.