4.2 Article

A cost-effectiveness analysis model of Preventicus atrial fibrillation screening from the point of view of statutory health insurance in Germany

期刊

HEALTH ECONOMICS REVIEW
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13561-020-00274-z

关键词

Atrial fibrillation; Screening; Prevention of stroke; Cost-effectiveness analysis

资金

  1. Preventicus GmbH, Tatzendpromenade, Jena, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background With atrial fibrillation (AF) the risk of stroke is 4.2-fold increased to a comparable population without AF. This risk decreases by up to 70% if AF is detected early enough and effective stroke preventive measures are taken as recommended by international guidelines. Long-term studies found large number of subjects with undiagnosed AF. Preventicus Heartbeats is a hands-on screening tool for use on smartphone to diagnose AF with high sensitivity and specificity. The aim of this study is to research the cost-effectiveness of systematic screening for AF with this smartphone application. Method Employing a Markov model we analysed the cost-effectiveness of the Preventicus Heartbeats screening for Germany, i.e. from the perspective of German statutory sick funds. Results For a cohort of 10,000 insured 75-year-old the use of the diagnostic app could avoid 60 strokes in the remaining lifetime thereof 32 strokes in the next four years. Former models have applied similar cohorts. The same cohort showed an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in the remaining lifetime of 165 QALYs in the scenario with screening versus. without screening and a decrease in discounted lifetime costs (including risk compensation effects) of euro129 per participant (euro148 for male, euro114 for female participants). Conclusions The modelling demonstrates the health benefits and economic effects of an implementation of a systematic screening on AF with Preventicus Heartbeats, given the perspective of the German payer, the statutory health care system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据