Cost-effectiveness

How it works

Benefits

Comparisons

Evidence quality

Highlighted claims

• The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for insertable cardiac monitoring versus standard of care was $38,346 per QALY gained. — Cost-effectiveness of an insertable cardiac monitor to detect atrial fibrillation in large- or small-vessel disease ischaemic stroke in the USA
• Insertable cardiac monitoring gained 0.176 QALYs per patient and avoided 53 additional strokes per 1,000 patients compared with standard of care. — Cost-effectiveness of an insertable cardiac monitor to detect atrial fibrillation in large- or small-vessel disease ischaemic stroke in the USA
• At willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY, the modeled probabilities that ICM was cost-effective were 60%, 85%, and 91%, respectively. — Cost-effectiveness of an insertable cardiac monitor to detect atrial fibrillation in large- or small-vessel disease ischaemic stroke in the USA
• Probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated a mean ICER of $46,910 per QALY. — Cost-effectiveness of an insertable cardiac monitor to detect atrial fibrillation in large- or small-vessel disease ischaemic stroke in the USA
• The upfront cost of insertable cardiac monitoring was partly offset by reduced acute hospitalization and long-term disability costs. — Cost-effectiveness of an insertable cardiac monitor to detect atrial fibrillation in large- or small-vessel disease ischaemic stroke in the USA
• ICM remained cost-effective across evaluated short-term monitoring strategies, with ICERs below $50,000 per QALY. — Cost-effectiveness of an insertable cardiac monitor to detect atrial fibrillation in large- or small-vessel disease ischaemic stroke in the USA