Why the study?
Is extended or one-time screening for NVAF cost-effective compared to no screening in the general population at age 75 years?
Is extended or one-time screening for NVAF cost-effective compared to no screening in the general population at age 75 years?
Both extended and one-time screening for non-valvular atrial fibrillation in 75-year-olds in the US are cost-effective strategies.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May inform US screening policy at age 75; leaves open need for trial confirmation of real-world value.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oğuz et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: