Cost-effectiveness of targeted screening for non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the United Kingdom in older patients using digital approaches.

AIM: Screening for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is key in identifying patients with undiagnosed disease who may be eligible for anticoagulation therapy. Understanding the economic value of screening is necessary to assess optimal strategies for payers and healthcare systems. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of opportunistic screening with handheld digital devices and pulse palpation, as well as targeted screening predictive algorithms for UK patients ≥75 years of age. METHODS: A previously developed Markov cohort model was adapted to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes of opportunistic screening including pulse palpation, Zenicor (extended 14 days), KardiaMobile (extended), and two algorithms compared to no screening. Key model inputs including epidemiology estimates, screening effectiveness, and risks for medical events were derived from the STROKESTOP, ARISTOTLE studies, and published literature, and cost inputs were obtained from a UK national cost database. Health and cost outcomes, annually discounted at 3.5%, were reported for a cohort of 10,000 patients vs. no screening over a time horizon equivalent to a patient's lifetime, Analyses were performed from a UK National Health Services and personal social services perspective. RESULTS: Zenicor, pulse palpation, and KardiaMobile were dominant (providing better health outcomes at lower costs) vs. no screening; both algorithms were cost-effective vs. no screening, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of £1,040 and £1,166. Zenicor, pulse palpation, and KardiaMobile remained dominant options vs. no screening in all scenarios explored. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated long-term stroke care costs, prevalence of undiagnosed NVAF in patients 75-79 years of age, and clinical efficacy of anticoagulant on stroke prevention were the main drivers of the cost-effectiveness results. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for NVAF at ≥75 years of age could result in fewer NVAF-related strokes. NVAF screening is cost-effective and may be cost-saving depending on the program chosen.

Comparative Analysis of All-Cause Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Among Venous Thrombosis Patients Without Cancer Prescribed Apixaban or VKAs in France.

INTRODUCTION: The direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) apixaban has shown to have non-inferior efficacy and better safety than vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). We determined whether healthcare resource use (HCRU) and direct all-cause medical and non-medical costs in patients with VTE in France differed between VKAs and apixaban. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using French national health data from January 2013-June 2018 for anticoagulant-naïve adults hospitalized with VTE. All-cause costs and HCRU per patient per month (PPPM) were compared between apixaban and VKA cohorts created by 1:1 propensity score matching. Two-part models with bootstrapping were used to calculate marginal effects for costs and HCRU. RESULTS: The matched VKA and apixaban cohorts each comprised 7503 patients. Compared to VKAs, patients prescribed apixaban had significantly lower (P < 0.0001) mean all-cause costs PPPM for outpatient visits (€438.54 vs. €455.58), overall laboratory tests (€21.26 vs. €83.73), and hospitalizations (€249.48 vs. €343.82), but significantly higher (P < 0.0001) mean all-cause costs PPPM for overall drugs (€97.06 vs. €69.56) and medical procedures (€42.12 vs. €35.50). Mean total all-cause direct medical costs (€687.93 vs. €798.70) and total all-cause direct medical and non-medical costs (€771.60 vs. €883.66) were significantly lower (P < 0.0001) for apixaban. Mean HCRU PPPM showed similar trends. Subgroup analyses showed that, among patients with recurrent VTE, patients prescribed apixaban had significantly lower (P < 0.0001) all-cause costs PPPM for total medical costs (€17.26 vs. €18.12) and total all-cause direct medical and non-medical costs (€18.37 vs. €19.20) than patients prescribed VKAs. Similarly, among patients with bleeding, patients prescribed apixaban had significantly lower (P < 0.0001) all-cause costs PPPM for total medical costs (€15.34 vs. €32.61) and total all-cause direct medical and non-medical costs (€16.23 vs. €34.63) than patients prescribed VKAs. CONCLUSION: Compared to VKAs, apixaban may be cost-saving in the treatment of patients hospitalized for acute VTE.

Living with Ulcerative Colitis Study (LUCY) in England: a retrospective study evaluating healthcare resource utilisation and direct healthcare costs of postoperative care in ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVE: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a lifelong, relapsing-remitting disease. Patients non-responsive to pharmacological treatment may require a colectomy. We estimated pre-colectomy and post-colectomy healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) and costs in England. DESIGN/METHOD: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study indexing adult patients with UC undergoing colectomy (2009-2015), using linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink/Hospital Episode Statistics data, was conducted. HCRU, healthcare costs and pharmacological treatments were evaluated during 12 months prior to and including colectomy (baseline) and 24 months post-colectomy (follow-up; F-U), comparing baseline/F-U, emergency/elective colectomy and subtotal/full colectomy using descriptive statistics and paired/unpaired tests. RESULTS: 249 patients from 26 165 identified were analysed including 145 (58%) elective and 184 (74%) full colectomies. Number/cost of general practitioner consultations increased post-colectomy (p<0.001), and then decreased at 13-24 months (p<0.05). From baseline to F-U, the number of outpatient visits, number/cost of hospitalisations and total direct healthcare costs decreased (all p<0.01). Postoperative HCRU was similar between elective and emergency colectomies, except for the costs of colectomy-related hospitalisations and medication, which were lower in the elective group (p<0.05). Postoperative costs were higher for subtotal versus full colectomies (p<0.001). At 1-12 month F-U, 30%, 19% and 5% of patients received aminosalicylates, steroids and immunosuppressants, respectively. CONCLUSION: HCRU/costs increased for primary care in the first year post-colectomy but decreased for secondary care, and varied according to the colectomy type. Ongoing and potentially unnecessary pharmacological therapy was seen in up to 30% of patients. These findings can inform patients and decision-makers of potential benefits and burdens of colectomy in UC.

Cost-effectiveness of targeted screening for the identification of patients with atrial fibrillation: evaluation of a machine learning risk prediction algorithm.

Aims: As many cases of atrial fibrillation (AF) are asymptomatic, patients often remain undiagnosed until complications (e.g. stroke) manifest. Risk-prediction algorithms may help to efficiently identify people with undiagnosed AF. However, the cost-effectiveness of targeted screening remains uncertain. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of targeted screening, informed by a machine learning (ML) risk prediction algorithm, to identify patients with AF.Methods: Cost-effectiveness analyses were undertaken utilizing a hybrid screening decision tree and Markov disease progression model. Costs and outcomes associated with the detection of AF compared traditional systematic and opportunistic AF screening strategies to targeted screening informed by a ML risk prediction algorithm. Model analyses were based on adults ≥50 years and adopted the UK NHS perspective.Results: Targeted screening using the ML risk prediction algorithm required fewer patients to be screened (61 per 1,000 patients, compared to 534 and 687 patients in the systematic and opportunistic strategies) and detected more AF cases (11 per 1,000 patients, compared to 6 and 8 AF cases in the systematic and opportunistic screening strategies). The targeted approach demonstrated cost-effectiveness under base case settings (cost per QALY gained of £4,847 and £5,544 against systematic and opportunistic screening respectively). The targeted screening strategy was predicted to provide an additional 3.40 and 2.05 QALYs per 1,000 patients screened versus systematic and opportunistic strategies. The targeted screening strategy remained cost-effective in all scenarios evaluated.Limitations: The analysis relied on assumptions that include the extended period of patient life span and the lack of consideration for treatment discontinuations/switching, as well as the assumption that the ML risk-prediction algorithm will identify asymptomatic AF.Conclusions: Targeted screening using a ML risk prediction algorithm has the potential to enhance the clinical and cost-effectiveness of AF screening, improving health outcomes through efficient use of limited healthcare resources.