Why the study?
Does treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs prevent thromboembolic events cost-effectively in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Does treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs prevent thromboembolic events cost-effectively in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Antiarrhythmic drugs can reduce thromboembolic events in paroxysmal AF but are less cost-effective than warfarin in chronic AF, largely due to the high cost of newer antiarrhythmic agents.
Antiarrhythmic drugs were associated with fewer events in paroxysmal AF; observational data leave cost-effectiveness open versus anticoagulation.
To determine whether treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs could be cost-effective in preventing thromboembolic events in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), 4 groups of patients without prior thromboembolism were studied. Group A: 193 patients with paroxysmal AF receiving antiarrhythmic drugs, but not antiplatelets or warfarin; Group B: 228 patients with paroxysmal AF not receiving antiarrhythmics, antiplatelets or warfarin; Group C: 284 patients with chronic AF receiving warfarin; Group D: 394 patients with chronic AF not receiving antiplatelets or warfarin. Direct costs for treatment of AF were determined. During a follow-up period of 4.6 years, the prevalence of thromboembolic episodes was lower by 70% in Group A and by 47% in Group C than in each control group. To prevent one thromboembolic event annually with antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with paroxysmal AF, an extra cost of 6.16 million yen was required. This less favorable cost-effectiveness was mainly because of physician's preference for new antiarrhythmic drugs. In contrast, treatment with warfarin required an extra cost of 1.09 million yen to prevent one thromboembolic event annually in patients with chronic AF. Antiarrhythmic drugs are less cost-effective in preventing thromboembolic events in patients with paroxysmal AF when new, expensive drugs are preferentially selected.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
The Research Group for Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: