Cargando…
Cost-Effectiveness of Extended and One-Time Screening Versus No Screening for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in the USA
BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the clinical and cost benefits of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) with electrocardiogram (ECG) in asymptomatic adults. METHODS: We adapted a previously published Markov model to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of one-time screening for non-va...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7347708/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31849021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00542-y |
_version_ | 1783556647440875520 |
---|---|
author | Oguz, Mustafa Lanitis, Tereza Li, Xiaoyan Wygant, Gail Singer, Daniel E. Friend, Keith Hlavacek, Patrick Nikolaou, Andreas Mattke, Soeren |
author_facet | Oguz, Mustafa Lanitis, Tereza Li, Xiaoyan Wygant, Gail Singer, Daniel E. Friend, Keith Hlavacek, Patrick Nikolaou, Andreas Mattke, Soeren |
author_sort | Oguz, Mustafa |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the clinical and cost benefits of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) with electrocardiogram (ECG) in asymptomatic adults. METHODS: We adapted a previously published Markov model to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of one-time screening for non-valvular AF (NVAF) with a single 12-lead ECG and a 14-day extended screening with a hand-held ECG device (Zenicor single-lead ECG, Z14) compared with no screening. Clinical events considered included ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeds, myocardial infarction, and death. Epidemiology and effectiveness data for extended screening were from the STROKESTOP study. Risks of clinical events in NVAF patients were derived from ARISTOTLE. Analyses were conducted from the perspective of a third-party payer, considering a population with undiagnosed NVAF, aged 75 years in the USA. Costs and utilities were discounted at a 3% annual rate. Parameter uncertainty was formally considered via deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA). Structural uncertainty was assessed via scenario analyses. RESULTS: In a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients followed over their lifetimes, the number of additional AF diagnoses was 54 with 12-lead ECG and 255 with Z14 compared with no screening. Both screening strategies led to better health outcomes (ischemic strokes avoided: ECG 12-lead, 9.8 and Z14, 42.2; quality-adjusted life-years gained: ECG 12-lead, 31 and Z14, 131). Extended screening and one-time screening were cost effective compared with no screening at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained ($58,728/QALY with ECG 12-lead and $47,949/QALY with Z14 in 2016 US dollars). ICERs remained below $100,000 per QALY in all DSA, most PSA runs, and in all scenario analyses except for a scenario assuming low anticoagulation persistence. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that, screening the general population at age 75 years for NVAF is cost effective at a WTP threshold of $100,000. Both extended screening and one-time screening for NVAF are expected to provide health benefits at an acceptable cost. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40258-019-00542-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7347708 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73477082020-07-16 Cost-Effectiveness of Extended and One-Time Screening Versus No Screening for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in the USA Oguz, Mustafa Lanitis, Tereza Li, Xiaoyan Wygant, Gail Singer, Daniel E. Friend, Keith Hlavacek, Patrick Nikolaou, Andreas Mattke, Soeren Appl Health Econ Health Policy Original Research Article BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the clinical and cost benefits of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) with electrocardiogram (ECG) in asymptomatic adults. METHODS: We adapted a previously published Markov model to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of one-time screening for non-valvular AF (NVAF) with a single 12-lead ECG and a 14-day extended screening with a hand-held ECG device (Zenicor single-lead ECG, Z14) compared with no screening. Clinical events considered included ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeds, myocardial infarction, and death. Epidemiology and effectiveness data for extended screening were from the STROKESTOP study. Risks of clinical events in NVAF patients were derived from ARISTOTLE. Analyses were conducted from the perspective of a third-party payer, considering a population with undiagnosed NVAF, aged 75 years in the USA. Costs and utilities were discounted at a 3% annual rate. Parameter uncertainty was formally considered via deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA). Structural uncertainty was assessed via scenario analyses. RESULTS: In a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients followed over their lifetimes, the number of additional AF diagnoses was 54 with 12-lead ECG and 255 with Z14 compared with no screening. Both screening strategies led to better health outcomes (ischemic strokes avoided: ECG 12-lead, 9.8 and Z14, 42.2; quality-adjusted life-years gained: ECG 12-lead, 31 and Z14, 131). Extended screening and one-time screening were cost effective compared with no screening at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained ($58,728/QALY with ECG 12-lead and $47,949/QALY with Z14 in 2016 US dollars). ICERs remained below $100,000 per QALY in all DSA, most PSA runs, and in all scenario analyses except for a scenario assuming low anticoagulation persistence. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that, screening the general population at age 75 years for NVAF is cost effective at a WTP threshold of $100,000. Both extended screening and one-time screening for NVAF are expected to provide health benefits at an acceptable cost. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40258-019-00542-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2019-12-17 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7347708/ /pubmed/31849021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00542-y Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Article Oguz, Mustafa Lanitis, Tereza Li, Xiaoyan Wygant, Gail Singer, Daniel E. Friend, Keith Hlavacek, Patrick Nikolaou, Andreas Mattke, Soeren Cost-Effectiveness of Extended and One-Time Screening Versus No Screening for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in the USA |
title | Cost-Effectiveness of Extended and One-Time Screening Versus No Screening for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in the USA |
title_full | Cost-Effectiveness of Extended and One-Time Screening Versus No Screening for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in the USA |
title_fullStr | Cost-Effectiveness of Extended and One-Time Screening Versus No Screening for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in the USA |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost-Effectiveness of Extended and One-Time Screening Versus No Screening for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in the USA |
title_short | Cost-Effectiveness of Extended and One-Time Screening Versus No Screening for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in the USA |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness of extended and one-time screening versus no screening for non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the usa |
topic | Original Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7347708/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31849021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00542-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT oguzmustafa costeffectivenessofextendedandonetimescreeningversusnoscreeningfornonvalvularatrialfibrillationintheusa AT lanitistereza costeffectivenessofextendedandonetimescreeningversusnoscreeningfornonvalvularatrialfibrillationintheusa AT lixiaoyan costeffectivenessofextendedandonetimescreeningversusnoscreeningfornonvalvularatrialfibrillationintheusa AT wygantgail costeffectivenessofextendedandonetimescreeningversusnoscreeningfornonvalvularatrialfibrillationintheusa AT singerdaniele costeffectivenessofextendedandonetimescreeningversusnoscreeningfornonvalvularatrialfibrillationintheusa AT friendkeith costeffectivenessofextendedandonetimescreeningversusnoscreeningfornonvalvularatrialfibrillationintheusa AT hlavacekpatrick costeffectivenessofextendedandonetimescreeningversusnoscreeningfornonvalvularatrialfibrillationintheusa AT nikolaouandreas costeffectivenessofextendedandonetimescreeningversusnoscreeningfornonvalvularatrialfibrillationintheusa AT mattkesoeren costeffectivenessofextendedandonetimescreeningversusnoscreeningfornonvalvularatrialfibrillationintheusa |