Why the study?
Diagnosing and treating acute coronary syndromes consumes substantial healthcare resources, motivating an assessment of whether home-based measurement of chemical cardiac biomarkers can reduce rising ACS treatment costs.
Do home-based solutions for measuring chemical cardiac biomarkers reduce health care costs in high-risk patients for acute coronary syndromes?
Do home-based solutions for measuring chemical cardiac biomarkers reduce health care costs in high-risk patients for acute coronary syndromes?
Home-based cardiac biomarker testing in high-risk patients may reduce healthcare costs and improve outcomes through earlier diagnosis.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May lower ACS costs via home biomarker monitoring; leaves open need for randomized outcome trials.
Diagnosing and treating acute coronary syndromes consumes a significant fraction of the healthcare budget worldwide. The pressure on resources is expected to increase with the continuing rise of cardiovascular disease, other chronic diseases and extended life expectancy, while expenditure is constrained. The objective of this review is to assess if home-based solutions for measuring chemical cardiac biomarkers can mitigate or reduce the continued rise in the costs of ACS treatment. A systematic review was performed considering published literature in several relevant public databases (i.e., PUBMED, Cochrane, Embase and Scopus) focusing on current biomarker practices in high-risk patients, their cost-effectiveness and the clinical evidence and feasibility of implementation. Out of 26,000 references screened, 86 met the inclusion criteria after independent full-text review. Current clinical evidence highlights that home-based solutions implemented in primary and secondary prevention reduce health care costs by earlier diagnosis, improved patient outcomes and quality of life, as well as by avoidance of unnecessary use of resources. Economical evidence suggests their potential to reduce health care costs if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or the willingness-to-pay does not surpass £20,000/QALY or €50,000 limit per 20,000 patients, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of these solutions increases when applied to high-risk patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Redón et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: