Why the study?
Improving diagnosis and treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in high-risk stroke patients may reduce strokes and associated costs, but the 3-year budget impact in England was unknown.
Does systematic atrial fibrillation screening reduce healthcare costs compared to standard of care in 75-year-old adults?
Does systematic atrial fibrillation screening reduce healthcare costs compared to standard of care in 75-year-old adults?
Although systematic AF screening in older adults requires upfront investment in screening and anticoagulation, it offsets costs over time by reducing the clinical and economic burden of stroke.
May offset initial AF screening costs via stroke savings in 75-year-olds; leaves open cost-effectiveness pending prospective trials.
Aim: Estimate the 3-year budget impact in England from 2016/17 of improving nonvalvular atrial fibrillation management in high-risk stroke patients. Materials & methods: The Academic Health Science Network’s AF Business Case Model was used to identify detection, protection (risk assessment and treatment initiation) and perfection (optimized treatment) gaps and to project the budget impact of closing these. Results: Closing all gaps over 3 years could prevent 27,550 strokes. Overall, perfection gap savings were £136,650,962 and protection gap savings were £58,146,171. Detection by screening in year one could cost £149,048,676, but with stroke-prevention savings would be £47,081,047 at 3 years. Thus, total potential savings were £194,797,133 and the cost-adjusted budget impact was £147,716,086. Conclusion: The detection and perfection gaps are key areas for investment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Orlowski et al. (2020) studied Atrial fibrillation (n=11,370,000). Systematic atrial fibrillation screening vs. Standard of care (no screening) was evaluated on Net budget impact over 5 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: