An Economic Evaluation of a Streamlined Day-Case Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Protocol and Conventional Cryoballoon Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs in a UK Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Population.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Symptom control for atrial fibrillation can be achieved by catheter ablation or drug therapy. We assessed the cost effectiveness of a novel streamlined atrial fibrillation cryoballoon ablation protocol (AVATAR) compared with optimised antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy and a conventional catheter ablation protocol, from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: Data from the AVATAR study were assessed to determine the cost effectiveness of the three protocols in a two-step process. In the first stage, statistical analysis of clinical efficacy outcomes was conducted considering either a three-way comparison (AVATAR vs. conventional ablation vs. optimised AAD therapies) or a two-way comparison (pooled ablation protocol data vs. optimised AAD therapies). In the second stage, models assessed the cost effectiveness of the protocols. Costs and some of the clinical inputs in the models were derived from within-trial cost analysis and published literature. The remaining inputs were derived from clinical experts. RESULTS: No significant differences between the ablation protocols were found for any of the clinical outcomes used in the model. Results of a within-trial cost analysis show that AVATAR is cost-saving (£1279 per patient) compared with the conventional ablation protocol. When compared with optimised AAD therapies, AVATAR (pooled conventional and AVATAR ablation protocols efficacy) was found to be more costly while offering improved clinical benefits. Over a lifetime time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AVATAR was estimated as £21,046 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (95% credible interval £7086-£71,718). CONCLUSIONS: The AVATAR streamlined protocol is likely to be a cost-effective option versus both conventional ablation and optimised AAD therapy in the UK NHS healthcare setting.

The Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Cryoablation vs First-Line Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Canadian Patients With Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The EARLY-AF (NCT02825979), STOP AF First (NCT03118518), and Cryo-FIRST (NCT01803438) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated that cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation reduces atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence compared with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF). The present study developed a cost-effectiveness model (CEM) of first-line cryoablation compared with first-line AADs for PAF, from the Canadian health care payer's perspective. METHODS: Data from the 3 RCTs were analysed to estimate key CEM parameters. The model structure used a decision tree for the first 12 months and a Markov model with a 3-month cycle length for the remaining lifetime time horizon. Costs were set at 2023 Canadian dollars, health benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and both were discounted 3% annually. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) considered parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: The statistical analysis estimated that first-line cryoablation generates a 47% reduction (P < 0.001) in the rate of AF recurrence, a 73% reduction in the rate of subsequent ablation (P < 0.001), and a 4.3% (P = 0.025) increase in health-related quality of life, compared with first-line AADs. The PSA indicates that an individual treated with first-line cryoablation accrues less costs (-$3,862) and more QALYs (0.19) compared with first-line AADs. Cryoablation is cost-saving in 98.4% of PSA iterations and has a 99.9% probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. Cost-effectiveness results were robust to changes in key model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: First-line cryoballoon ablation is cost-effective when compared with AADs for patients with symptomatic PAF.

Quantifying the direct secondary health care cost of seasonal influenza in England.

BACKGROUND: The winter pressure often experienced by NHS hospitals in England is considerably contributed to by severe cases of seasonal influenza resulting in hospitalisation. The prevention planning and commissioning of the influenza vaccination programme in the UK does not always involve those who control the hospital budget. The objective of this study was to describe the direct medical costs of secondary care influenza-related hospital admissions across different age groups in England during two consecutive influenza seasons. METHODS: The number of hospital admissions, length of stay, and associated costs were quantified as well as determining the primary costs of influenza-related hospitalisations. Data were extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database between September 2017 to March 2018 and September 2018 to March 2019 in order to incorporate the annual influenza seasons. The use of international classification of disease (ICD)-10 codes were used to identify relevant influenza hospitalisations. Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) codes were used to determine the costs of influenza-related hospitalisations. RESULTS: During the 2017/18 and 2018/19 seasons there were 46,215 and 39,670 influenza-related hospital admissions respectively. This resulted in a hospital cost of £128,153,810 and £99,565,310 across both seasons. Results showed that those in the 65+ year group were associated with the highest hospitalisation costs and proportion of in-hospital deaths. In both influenza seasons, the HRG code WJ06 (Sepsis without Interventions) was found to be associated with the longest average length of stay and cost per admission, whereas PD14 (Paediatric Lower Respiratory Tract Disorders without Acute Bronchiolitis) had the shortest length of stay. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that influenza-related hospital admissions had a considerable impact on the secondary healthcare system during the 2017/18 and 2018/19 influenza seasons, before taking into account its impact on primary health care.