Summary of studies on cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency of telemedicine in pediatric and adolescent asthmatic patients

AuthorNumber of patients (follow-up)Study groupsResultsScientific evidence
van den Wijngaart et al. [14, 33], Netherlands210 patients (6–16 years) follow-up: 16 months.

  • Usual care (outpatient visits every 4 months).

  • Online care using a virtual asthma clinic (8-monthly outpatient visits with monthly web-based monitoring).

  • Monthly virtual asthma care was as effective as routine in-person visits [14]. Direct and indirect costs per patient were lower for pediatric patients who received virtual follow-up compared to those who received conventional in-person care (median cost per patient: €889.77 versus €1081.47, respectively; p = 0.014) [33].

  • Online follow-up proved to be as cost-effective or more cost-efficient than usual care [33].

I A weak
Xu et al. [34], Australia121 patients (3–16 years) follow-up: 6 months.

  • Control group: usual asthma follow-up.

  • Nursing contact: phone call or email every 2 weeks.

  • Automated system: interactive automated phone call twice a week.

The total healthcare cost was significantly lower for patients who received nursing phone calls and in the group with automated telephone assistance compared to the control group (cost reduction of A$225 and A$451 per patient, respectively) [36].I A moderate
Beerthuizen et al. [35], Netherlands272 pediatric patients (4–18 years) follow-up: 12 months.

  • Conventional visits.

  • Web-based monitoring of asthma control.

No differences were found in costs or cost-effectiveness.I A moderate