Key result
Computerized decision support fails to reduce healthcare costs or resource use in AF.
Why the study?
The IMPACT-AF trial aimed to compare resource use and costs between computerized decision support system and usual care in managing atrial fibrillation in primary care, addressing economic data gaps.
Does a computerized decision support system reduce resource use and costs in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to usual care?
RCT (n=1,145)
Open-label
Cluster randomized
Yes
Does a computerized decision support system reduce resource use and costs in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to usual care?
Absolute Event Rate: 1433% vs 1307%
p-value: p=0.856
The implementation of a computerized decision support system for atrial fibrillation management in primary care did not significantly impact healthcare resource use or costs compared to usual care over 12 months.
Computerized decision support does not reduce costs or resource use in AF; challenges assumptions of efficiency gains and does not support routine implementation.
BACKGROUND: IMPACT-AF is a prospective, randomized, cluster design trial comparing atrial fibrillation (AF) management with a computerized decision support system (CDS) to usual care (control) in the primary care setting of Nova Scotia, Canada. The objective of this analysis was to compare the resource use and costs between CDS and usual care groups. METHODS: Case costing data, 12-month self-administered questionnaires, and monthly diaries from IMPACT-AF were used in this analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to compare costs and resource use between groups. All costs are presented in 2021 Canadian dollars and cover the 12-month period of participation in the study. RESULTS: A total of 1,145 patients enrolled in the trial. Case costing data were available for 466 participants (41.1%), 12-month self-administered questionnaire data for 635 participants (56.0%) and monthly diary data for 223 participants (19.7%). Emergency department visits and hospitalizations comprised the most expensive component of AF care. Across all three datasets, there were no statistically significant differences in costs or resource use between CDS and usual care groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no significant differences in resource use or costs among CDS and usual care groups in the IMPACT-AF trial, this study provides insight into the methodology and practical challenges of collecting economic data alongside a trial. REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT01927367, date of registration: 2013-08-20).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Humphries et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Atrial fibrillation (n=1,145). Computerized decision support system (CDS) vs. Usual care was evaluated on Total direct costs (Canadian dollars) (p=0.856). A computerized decision support system did not significantly reduce total direct healthcare costs ($1,433 vs $1,307, p=0.856) or resource use compared to usual care in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: