The non-anticoagulation costs of atrial fibrillation management: findings from an observational study in NHS Primary Care

The Cost of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia, with an increasing incidence and prevalence because of progressively aging populations. Costs related to AF are both direct and indirect. This systematic review aims to identify the main cost drivers of the illness, assess the potential economic impact resulting from changes in care strategies, and propose interventions where they are most needed.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the PubMed and Scopus databases was performed to identify analytical observational studies defining the cost of illness in cases of AF. The search strategy was based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 recommendations.

RESULTS

Of the 944 articles retrieved, 24 met the inclusion criteria. These studies were conducted in several countries. All studies calculated the direct medical costs, whereas 8 of 24 studies assessed indirect costs. The median annual direct medical cost per patient, considering all studies, was €9409 (13 333 US dollars in purchasing power parities), with a very large variability due to the heterogeneity of different analyses. Hospitalization costs are generally the main cost drivers. Comorbidities and complications, such as stroke, considerably increase the average annual direct medical cost of AF.

CONCLUSIONS

In most of the analyzed studies, inpatient care cost represents the main component of the mean direct medical cost per patient. Stroke and heart failure are responsible for a large share of the total costs; therefore, implementing guidelines to manage comorbidities in AF is a necessary step to improve health and mitigate healthcare costs.

Screening strategies for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that increases the risk of thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation therapy to prevent AF-related stroke has been shown to be cost-effective. A national screening programme for AF may prevent AF-related events, but would involve a substantial investment of NHS resources.

Objectives

To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of screening tests for AF, update a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating screening strategies for AF, develop an economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies and review observational studies of AF screening to provide inputs to the model.

Design

Systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Setting

Primary care.

Participants

Adults.

Intervention

Screening strategies, defined by screening test, age at initial and final screens, screening interval and format of screening {systematic opportunistic screening [individuals offered screening if they consult with their general practitioner (GP)] or systematic population screening (when all eligible individuals are invited to screening)}.

Main outcome measures

Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios; the odds ratio of detecting new AF cases compared with no screening; and the mean incremental net benefit compared with no screening.

Review methods

Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A DTA meta-analysis was perfomed, and a decision tree and Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the screening strategies.

Results

Diagnostic test accuracy depended on the screening test and how it was interpreted. In general, the screening tests identified in our review had high sensitivity (> 0.9). Systematic population and systematic opportunistic screening strategies were found to be similarly effective, with an estimated 170 individuals needed to be screened to detect one additional AF case compared with no screening. Systematic opportunistic screening was more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening, as long as the uptake of opportunistic screening observed in randomised controlled trials translates to practice. Modified blood pressure monitors, photoplethysmography or nurse pulse palpation were more likely to be cost-effective than other screening tests. A screening strategy with an initial screening age of 65 years and repeated screens every 5 years until age 80 years was likely to be cost-effective, provided that compliance with treatment does not decline with increasing age.

Conclusions

A national screening programme for AF is likely to represent a cost-effective use of resources. Systematic opportunistic screening is more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening. Nurse pulse palpation or modified blood pressure monitors would be appropriate screening tests, with confirmation by diagnostic 12-lead electrocardiography interpreted by a trained GP, with referral to a specialist in the case of an unclear diagnosis. Implementation strategies to operationalise uptake of systematic opportunistic screening in primary care should accompany any screening recommendations.

Limitations

Many inputs for the economic model relied on a single trial [the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly (SAFE) study] and DTA results were based on a few studies at high risk of bias/of low applicability.

Future work

Comparative studies measuring long-term outcomes of screening strategies and DTA studies for new, emerging technologies and to replicate the results for photoplethysmography and GP interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiography in a screening population.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013739.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.