We are upgrading the repository! A content freeze is in effect until December 6, 2024. New submissions or changes to existing items will not be allowed during this period. All content already published will remain publicly available for searching and downloading. Updates will be posted in the Website Upgrade 2024 FAQ in the sidebar Help menu. Reach out to escholarship@umassmed.edu with any questions.
Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Atrial Fibrillation Using Wearable Devices
Authors
Chen, WanyiKhurshid, Shaan
Singer, Daniel E
Atlas, Steven J
Ashburner, Jeffrey M
Ellinor, Patrick T
McManus, David D
Lubitz, Steven A
Chhatwal, Jagpreet
UMass Chan Affiliations
MedicineDocument Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2022-08-05
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Importance: Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important cause of stroke. Screening for AF using wrist-worn wearable devices may prevent strokes, but their cost-effectiveness is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of contemporary AF screening strategies, particularly wrist-worn wearable devices. Design setting and participants: This economic evaluation used a microsimulation decision-analytic model and was conducted from September 8, 2020, to May 23, 2022, comprising 30 million simulated individuals with an age, sex, and comorbidity profile matching the US population aged 65 years or older. Interventions: Eight AF screening strategies, with 6 using wrist-worn wearable devices (watch or band photoplethysmography, with or without watch or band electrocardiography) and 2 using traditional modalities (ie, pulse palpation and 12-lead electrocardiogram) vs no screening. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, defined as US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Secondary measures included rates of stroke and major bleeding. Results: In the base case analysis of this model, the mean (SD) age was 72.5 (7.5) years, and 50% of the individuals were women. All 6 screening strategies using wrist-worn wearable devices were estimated to be more effective than no screening (range of QALYs gained vs no screening, 226-957 per 100 000 individuals) and were associated with greater relative benefit than screening using traditional modalities (range of QALYs gained vs no screening, -116 to 93 per 100 000 individuals). Compared with no screening, screening using wrist-worn wearable devices was associated with a reduction in stroke incidence by 20 to 23 per 100 000 person-years but an increase in major bleeding by 20 to 44 per 100 000 person-years. The overall preferred strategy was wearable photoplethysmography, followed conditionally by wearable electrocardiography with patch monitor confirmation, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $57 894 per QALY, meeting the acceptability threshold of $100 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of screening was consistent across multiple scenarios, including strata of sex, screening at earlier ages (eg, ≥50 years), and with variation in the association of anticoagulation with risk of stroke in the setting of screening-detected AF. Conclusions and relevance: This economic evaluation of AF screening using a microsimulation decision-analytic model suggests that screening using wearable devices is cost-effective compared with either no screening or AF screening using traditional methods.Source
Chen W, Khurshid S, Singer DE, Atlas SJ, Ashburner JM, Ellinor PT, McManus DD, Lubitz SA, Chhatwal J. Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Atrial Fibrillation Using Wearable Devices. JAMA Health Forum. 2022 Aug 5;3(8):e222419. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2419. PMID: 36003419; PMCID: PMC9356321.DOI
10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2419Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/52947PubMed ID
36003419Rights
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Chen W et al. JAMA Health Forum.Distribution License
https://jamanetwork.com/pages/cc-by-license-permissionsae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2419