Daniel A Steinhaus1, Peter J Zimetbaum1, Rod S Passman2, Peter Leong-Sit3, Matthew R Reynolds4,5. 1. Division of Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada. 4. Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Division of Cardiology, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anticoagulation guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) disregard AF burden. A strategy of targeted anticoagulation with novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) based on continuous rhythm assessment with an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) has recently been explored. We evaluated the potential cost-effectiveness of this strategy versus projected outcomes with continuous anticoagulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a Markov model using data from the Rhythm Evaluation for AntiCoagulaTion With COntinuous Monitoring (REACT.COM) pilot study (N = 59) and prior NOAC trials to calculate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with ICM-guided intermittent anticoagulation for AF versus standard care during a 3-year time horizon. Health state utilities were estimated from the pilot study population using the SF-12. Costs were based on current Medicare reimbursement. Over 14 ± 4 months of follow-up, 18 of 59 patients had 35 AF episodes. The ICM-guided strategy resulted in a 94% reduction in anticoagulant use relative to continuous treatment. There were no strokes, 3 (5.1%) TIAs, 2 major bleeding events (on aspirin) and 3 minor bleeding events with the ICM-guided strategy. The projected total 3-year costs were $12,535 for the ICM-guided strategy versus $13,340 for continuous anticoagulation. Projected QALYs were 2.45 for both groups. CONCLUSION: Based on a pilot study, a strategy of ICM-guided anticoagulation with NOACs may be cost-saving relative to expected outcomes with continuous anticoagulation, with similar quality-adjusted survival. This strategy could be attractive from a health economic perspective if shown to be safe and effective in a rigorous clinical trial.
INTRODUCTION: Anticoagulation guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) disregard AF burden. A strategy of targeted anticoagulation with novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) based on continuous rhythm assessment with an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) has recently been explored. We evaluated the potential cost-effectiveness of this strategy versus projected outcomes with continuous anticoagulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed a Markov model using data from the Rhythm Evaluation for AntiCoagulaTion With COntinuous Monitoring (REACT.COM) pilot study (N = 59) and prior NOAC trials to calculate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with ICM-guided intermittent anticoagulation for AF versus standard care during a 3-year time horizon. Health state utilities were estimated from the pilot study population using the SF-12. Costs were based on current Medicare reimbursement. Over 14 ± 4 months of follow-up, 18 of 59 patients had 35 AF episodes. The ICM-guided strategy resulted in a 94% reduction in anticoagulant use relative to continuous treatment. There were no strokes, 3 (5.1%) TIAs, 2 major bleeding events (on aspirin) and 3 minor bleeding events with the ICM-guided strategy. The projected total 3-year costs were $12,535 for the ICM-guided strategy versus $13,340 for continuous anticoagulation. Projected QALYs were 2.45 for both groups. CONCLUSION: Based on a pilot study, a strategy of ICM-guided anticoagulation with NOACs may be cost-saving relative to expected outcomes with continuous anticoagulation, with similar quality-adjusted survival. This strategy could be attractive from a health economic perspective if shown to be safe and effective in a rigorous clinical trial.
Authors: Sakis Themistoclakis; Andrea Corrado; Francis E Marchlinski; Pierre Jais; Erica Zado; Antonio Rossillo; Luigi Di Biase; Robert A Schweikert; Walid I Saliba; Rodney Horton; Prasant Mohanty; Dimpi Patel; David J Burkhardt; Oussama M Wazni; Aldo Bonso; David J Callans; Michel Haissaguerre; Antonio Raviele; Andrea Natale Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David T Martin; Malcolm M Bersohn; Albert L Waldo; Mark S Wathen; Wassim K Choucair; Gregory Y H Lip; John Ip; Richard Holcomb; Joseph G Akar; Jonathan L Halperin Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: James V Freeman; Ruo P Zhu; Douglas K Owens; Alan M Garber; David W Hutton; Alan S Go; Paul J Wang; Mintu P Turakhia Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Thomas Vanassche; Mandy N Lauw; John W Eikelboom; Jeff S Healey; Robert G Hart; Marco Alings; Alvaro Avezum; Rafael Díaz; Stefan H Hohnloser; Basil S Lewis; Olga Shestakovska; Jia Wang; Stuart J Connolly Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Claes Held; Elaine M Hylek; John H Alexander; Michael Hanna; Renato D Lopes; Daniel M Wojdyla; Laine Thomas; Hussein Al-Khalidi; Marco Alings; Dennis Xavier; Jack Ansell; Shinya Goto; Witold Ruzyllo; Mårten Rosenqvist; Freek W A Verheugt; Jun Zhu; Christopher B Granger; Lars Wallentin Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Giuseppe Boriani; Taya V Glotzer; Massimo Santini; Teena M West; Mirko De Melis; Milan Sepsi; Maurizio Gasparini; Thorsten Lewalter; John A Camm; Daniel E Singer Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Karim Bayoumy; Mohammed Gaber; Abdallah Elshafeey; Omar Mhaimeed; Elizabeth H Dineen; Francoise A Marvel; Seth S Martin; Evan D Muse; Mintu P Turakhia; Khaldoun G Tarakji; Mohamed B Elshazly Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 32.419