Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of an insertable cardiac monitor in a high-risk population in the UK.

ABSTRACT: Objective:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) compared with standard of care (SoC) for detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients at high risk of stroke (CHADS2 >2), using a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Methods:Using patient characteristics and clinical data from the REVEAL AF trial, a Markov model assessed the cost-effectiveness of detecting AF with an ICM compared with SoC. Costs and benefits were extrapolated across modelled patient lifetime. Ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes, intracranial and extracranial haemorrhages and minor bleeds were modelled. Diagnostic and device costs were included, plus costs of treating stroke and bleeding events and costs of oral anticoagulants (OACs). Costs and health outcomes, measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), were discounted at 3.5% per annum. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were undertaken. Results:The total per-patient cost for ICM was £13?360 versus £11?936 for SoC (namely, annual 24?hours Holter monitoring). ICMs generated a total of 6.50 QALYs versus 6.30 for SoC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £7140/QALY gained, below the £20 000/QALY acceptability threshold. ICMs were cost-effective in 77.4% of PSA simulations. The number of ICMs needed to prevent one stroke was 21 and to cause a major bleed was 37. ICERs were sensitive to assumed proportions of patients initiating or discontinuing OAC after AF diagnosis, type of OAC used and how intense the traditional monitoring was assumed to be under SoC. Conclusions:The use of ICMs to identify AF in a high-risk population is cost-effective for the UK NHS.

SUBMITTER: Rinciog CI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6593196 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of an insertable cardiac monitor in a high-risk population in the UK.

Rinciog Claudia I CI Sawyer Laura M LM Diamantopoulos Alexander A Elkind Mitchell S V MSV Reynolds Matthew M Tsintzos Stylianos I SI Ziegler Paul D PD Quiroz Maria E ME Wolff Claudia C Witte Klaus K KK

Open heart 20190620 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) compared with standard of care (SoC) for detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients at high risk of stroke (CHADS<sub>2</sub> >2), using a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.<h4>Methods</h4>Using patient characteristics and clinical data from the REVEAL AF trial, a Markov model assessed the cost-effectiveness of detecting AF with an ICM compared with SoC. Costs and benefits were extrapolated ...[more]

PMID: 31297227

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn approximately 20% of atrial fibrillation (AF)-related ischemic strokes, stroke is the first clinical manifestation of AF. Strategies are needed to identify and therapeutically address previously undetected AF.ObjectiveTo quantify the incidence of AF in patients at high risk for but without previously known AF using an insertable cardiac monitor.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective, single-arm, multicenter study was conducted from November 2012 to January 2017. Visits took place at 57 centers in the United States and Europe. Patients with a CHADS2 score of 3 or greater (or 2 with at least 1 additional risk factor) were enrolled. Approximately 90% had nonspecific symptoms potentially compatible with AF, such as fatigue, dyspnea, and/or palpitations.ExposuresPatients underwent monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor for 18 to 30 months.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was adjudicated AF lasting 6 or more minutes and was assessed at 18 months. Other analyses included detection rates at points from 30 days to 30 months and among CHADS2 score subgroups. Median time from insertion to detection and the percentage of patients subsequently prescribed oral anticoagulation therapy was also determined.ResultsA total of 446 patients were enrolled; 233 (52.2%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 71.5 (9.9) years. A total of 385 patients (86.3%) received an insertable cardiac monitor, met the primary analysis cohort definition, and were observed for a mean (SD) period of 22.5 (7.7) months. The detection rate of AF lasting 6 or more minutes at 18 months was 29.3%. Detection rates at 30 days and 6, 12, 24, and 30 months were 6.2%, 20.4%, 27.1%, 33.6%, and 40.0%, respectively. At 18 months, AF incidence was similar among patients with CHADS2 scores of 2 (24.7%; 95% CI, 17.3-31.4), 3 (32.7%; 95% CI, 23.8-40.7), and 4 or greater (31.7%; 95% CI, 22.0-40.3) (P = .23). Median (interquartile) time from device insertion to first AF episode detection was 123 (41-330) days. Of patients meeting the primary end point, 13 (10.2%) had 1 or more episodes lasting 24 hours or longer, and oral anticoagulation therapy was prescribed for 72 patients (56.3%).Conclusions and relevanceThe incidence of previously undiagnosed AF may be substantial in patients with risk factors for AF and stroke. Atrial fibrillation would have gone undetected in most patients had monitoring been limited to 30 days. Further trials regarding the value of detecting subclinical AF and of prophylactic therapies are warranted.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01727297.

Project description:Given the high prevalence and risk of stroke associated with atrial fibrillation (AF), detection strategies have important public health implications. The ongoing prospective, single-arm, open-label, multicenter REVEAL AF trial is evaluating the incidence of previously undetected AF using an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) in patients without prior AF or device implantation, but who could be at risk for AF due to their demographic characteristics, +/- non-specific but compatible symptoms. Enrollment required an elevated AF risk profile defined as CHADS2≥3 or CHADS2=2 plus one or more of the following: coronary artery disease, renal impairment, sleep apnea or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Exclusions included stroke or transient ischemic attack occurring in the previous year. Of 450 subjects screened, 399 underwent a device insertion attempt, and 395 were included in the final analysis (Reveal XT: n=122; Reveal LINQ: n=273; excluded: n=4). Participants were primarily identified by demographic characteristics and the presence of nonspecific symptoms, but without prior documentation of "overt" AF. The most common symptoms were palpitations (51%), dizziness/lightheadedness/pre-syncope (36%), and shortness of breath (36%). Over 100 subjects were enrolled in each pre-defined CHADS2 subgroup (2, 3 and ≥4). AF risk factors not included in the CHADS2 score were well represented (prevalence≥15%). Procedure and/or device related serious adverse events were low, with the miniaturized Reveal LINQ ICM having a more favorable safety profile than the predicate Reveal XT (all: n=13 [3.3%]; LINQ: n=6 [2.2%]; XT: n=7 [5.7%]). These data demonstrate that REVEAL AF was successful in enrolling its target population, high risk patients were willing to undergo ICM monitoring for AF screening, and ICM use in this group is becoming increasingly safe with advancements in technology. A clinically meaningful incidence of device detected AF in this study will inform clinical decisions regarding ICM use for AF screening in patients at risk.

Project description:BackgroundBreast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a sensitive method of breast imaging virtually uninfluenced by breast density. Because of the improved sensitivity, breast MRI is increasingly being used for detection of breast cancer among high risk young women. However, the specificity of breast MRI is variable and costs are high. The purpose of this study was to determine if breast MRI is a cost-effective approach for the detection of breast cancer among young women at high risk.MethodsA Markov model was created to compare annual breast cancer screening over 25 years with either breast MRI or mammography among young women at high risk. Data from published studies provided probabilities for the model including sensitivity and specificity of each screening strategy. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates for hospital and physician services while medication costs were obtained from the Federal Supply Scale. Utilities from the literature were applied to each health outcome in the model including a disutility for the temporary health state following breast biopsy for a false positive test result. All costs and benefits were discounted at 5% per year. The analysis was performed from the payer perspective with results reported in 2006 U.S. dollars. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in all model parameters.ResultsBreast MRI provided 14.1 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a discounted cost of $18,167 while mammography provided 14.0 QALYs at a cost of $4,760 over 25 years of screening. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of breast MRI compared to mammography was $179,599/QALY. In univariate analysis, breast MRI screening became < $50,000/QALY when the cost of the MRI was < $315. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, MRI screening produced a net health benefit of -0.202 QALYs (95% central range: -0.767 QALYs to +0.439 QALYs) compared to mammography at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Breast MRI screening was superior in 0%, < $50,000/QALY in 22%, > $50,000/QALY in 34%, and inferior in 44% of trials.ConclusionAlthough breast MRI may provide health benefits when compared to mammographic screening for some high risk women, it does not appear to be cost-effective even at willingness to pay thresholds above $120,000/QALY.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of an insertable cardiac monitor in a high-risk population in the UK.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of an insertable cardiac monitor in a high-risk population in the UK.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets