(1) Background: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the cost-effectiveness of two follow-up methods (face-to-face and telemedicine) used in dermatology in the last ten years. (2) Methods: A search for articles that included economic analyses was conducted in August 2021 in the databases PubMed, Medline, Scielo and Scopus using the following keywords: “Cost–Benefit Analysis”, “Dermatology”, “Telemedicine”, “Primary Health Care”, as well as other search terms and following the PICOS eligibility criteria. (3) Results: Three clinical trials and five observational studies were analyzed, providing information for approximately 16,539 patients (including four cost-minimization or saving analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and one cost–utility analysis) in Europe and the United States. They describe the follow-up procedures in each of the cases and measure and analyze the direct and indirect costs and effectiveness. All the articles indicate that teledermatology lowers costs and proves satisfactory to both patients and professionals. (4) Conclusions: Although it has been found that follow-up via teledermatology can be more efficient than traditional hospital follow-up, more work is needed to establish evaluation protocols and procedures that measure key variables more equally and demonstrate the quality of the evidence of said studies.

The aim of our study was to perform an economic assessment in order to check whether or not telemonitoring of users with pacemakers offers a cost-effective alternative to traditional follow-up in outpatient clinics. We used effectiveness and cost data from the NORDLAND trial, which is a controlled, randomized, non-masked clinical trial. Fifty patients were assigned to receive either telemonitoring (TM; n = 25) or conventional monitoring (CM; n = 25) and were followed up for 12 months after the implantation. A cost–utility analysis was performed in terms of additional costs per additional Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) attained from the perspectives of the Norwegian National Healthcare System and patients and their caregivers. Effectiveness was similar between alternatives (TM: 0.7804 [CI: 0.6864 to 0.8745] vs. CM: 0.7465 [CI: 0.6543 to 0.8387]), while cost per patient was higher in the RM group, both from the Norwegian NHS perspective (TM: €2,079.84 [CI: 0.00 to 4,610.58] vs. €271.97 [CI: 158.18 to 385.76]; p = 0.147) and including the patient/family perspective (TM: €2,295.91 [CI: 0.00 to 4,843.28] vs. CM: €430.39 [CI: 0.00 to 4,841.48]), although these large differences—mainly due to a few patients being hospitalized in the TM group, as opposed to none in the CM group—did not reach statistical significance. The Incremental Cost–Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) from the Norwegian NHS perspective (€53,345.27/QALY) and including the patient/caregiver perspective (€55,046.40/QALY), as well as the Incremental Net Benefit (INB), favors the CM alternative, albeit with very broad 95%CIs. The probabilistic analysis confirmed inconclusive results due to the wide CIs even suggesting that TM was not cost-effective in this study. Supplemental analysis excluding the hospitalization costs shows positive INBs, whereby suggesting a discrete superiority of the RM alternative if hospitalization costs were not considered, albeit also with broad CIs. Cost–utility analysis of TM vs. CM shows inconclusive results because of broad confidence intervals with ICER and INB figures ranging from potential savings to high costs for an additional QALY, with the majority of ICERs being above the usual NHS thresholds for coverage decisions. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02237404.

The purpose of this study was to analyse the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients followed up using a remote device-monitoring system (TM) compared to patients followed up through standard outpatient visits (HM), 12 months after the implantation of a pacemaker. This was a trial design that used the EuroQol-5D Questionnaire and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF). The HRQoL of a cohort of 50 consecutive patients randomly allocated to one of the two follow-up modalities was measured at baseline and then during follow-up, 12 months after the pacemaker implantation. Eventually, 23 patients were followed-up through standard outpatient visits, while 23 used a remote monitoring system. Results: The baseline clinical characteristics and health-related quality of life of the patients from both groups were observed to be statistically similar. Twelve months after the pacemaker implantation, both groups showed statistically significant improvements in the baseline parameters based on the MLHF. The patients followed up through hospital visits showed a greater increase in MLHF-HRQoL after 12 months, although the increase was not significantly greater than that of the TM group. Furthermore, the frequencies of emergency visits and re-hospitalisations did not differ between the groups.

The concept of ‘patient experience’ has become central to how to improve healthcare. Remote communication with patients is today a frequent practice in healthcare services, showing similar outcomes to standard outpatient care while enabling cost reduction in both formal and informal care. The purpose of this study was to analyse the experiences of people with telemonitoring pacemakers. Patients were randomly allocated to either the telemonitoring or hospital monitoring follow-ups. Using the ‘Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire’ (GS-PEQ), as well as an ad-hoc survey from the ‘telehealth patient satisfaction survey’ and ‘costs survey’, patients’ experiences were measured six months after the pacemaker implant in a cohort of 50 consecutive patients. The mean age was 74.8 (± 11.75) years and 26 (52%) patients were male of which 1 was lost in follow-up. Finally, 24 patients were followed up with standard hospital monitoring, while 25 used the telemonitoring system. Differences in baseline characteristics between groups were not found. Findings showed overall positive and similar experiences in patients living with telemonitoring and hospital monitoring pacemakers. Significant differences were found in GS-PEQ concerning how telemonitoring patients received less information about their diagnosis/afflictions (p = 0.046). We did not find significant differences in other items such as ‘confidence in the clinicians’ professional skills’, ‘treatment perception adapted to their situation’, ‘involvement in decisions regarding the treatment’, ‘perception of hospital organisation’, ‘waiting before admission’, ‘satisfaction of help and treatment received’, ‘benefit received’, and ‘incorrect treatment’. The remote communication of pacemakers was met with positive levels of patients’ experiences similarly to patients in the hospital monitoring follow-up. However, telemonitoring patients received less information. Thus, improving the quality and timing of information is required in telemonitoring patients in the planning and organisation of future remote communication healthcare services for people living with a pacemaker implant.

The use of remote follow-up (RF) of people with pacemakers (PM) is limited in comparison to the hospital modality (HS), being still poor the scientific evidence that shows their comparative effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of life in individuals with different modalities of follow-up. Controlled, not randomized nor masked clinical trial, with data collection at pre and post-implantation of pacemakers during the 6 months follow-up. All patients over 18 years-old who were implanted a PM during the study period were selected (n = 83), and they were assigned to RF (n = 30) or HF (n = 53) groups according to their personal characteristics and patient's preferences. Baseline characteristics and number of visits to the hospital were analysed, the EuroQol-5D (EQ5D) questionnaire was administered to evaluate the health-related quality of life, and Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) to assess the functional capacity. There were no significant differences between both groups in relation to the baseline analysis, EQ5D (RF:0.7299; HF:0.6769) and DASI (RF:21.41; HF:19.99). At 6 months the quality of life was improved in both groups (EQ5D RF:0.8613; HF:0.8175; p = 0,439) still without significant differences between them. DASI score was similar to baseline (20.51 vs 21.80). RF group performed less transmissions/visits per patient (1.57) than hospital group (1.96; relative reduction 31%; p = 0.015). Remote follow-up of people with pacemakers might be considered as an equivalent option to the hospital follow-up in relation to the quality of life and it reduces the number of hospital visits.