Why the study?
Integrated care for patients with AF in primary care reduced mortality compared to usual care, but its cost-effectiveness required assessment.
Does integrated care improve cost-effectiveness compared to usual care in primary care patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does integrated care improve cost-effectiveness compared to usual care in primary care patients with atrial fibrillation?
Integrated care for atrial fibrillation in primary care may reduce costs without affecting QALYs, though missing data limits the certainty of cost-effectiveness.
May support integrated AF care in primary care if cost-effective; leaves open broader adoption pending confirmatory data.
Introduction: Integrated care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care reduced mortality compared to usual care. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this approach. Methods: Dutch primary care practices were randomised to provide integrated care for AF patients or usual care. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective with a 2-year time horizon to estimate incremental costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). A sensitivity analysis was performed, imputing missing questionnaires for a large group of usual care patients. Results: 522 patients from 15 intervention practices were compared to 425 patients from 11 usual care practices. No effect on QALYs was seen, while mean costs indicated a cost reduction between €865 (95% percentile interval (PI) -€5730 to €3641) and €1343 (95% PI -€6534 to €3109) per patient per 2 years. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged between 36% and 54%. In the sensitivity analysis, this increased to 95%-99%. Discussion: Results should be interpreted with caution due to missing information for a large proportion of usual care patients. Conclusion: The higher costs from extra primary care consultations were likely outweighed by cost reductions for other resources, yet this study doesn't give sufficient clarity on the cost-effectiveness of integrated AF care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dries et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: