Resource use and cost associated with computerized decision support system and usual care in managing patients with atrial fibrillation: analysis of IMPACT-AF randomized trial data.
Atrial fibrillation
Costs
Decision support tool
Randomized controlled trial
Resource utilization
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 10 2023
18 10 2023
Historique:
received:
19
06
2023
accepted:
06
10
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
19
10
2023
entrez:
18
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
IMPACT-AF is a prospective, randomized, cluster design trial comparing atrial fibrillation (AF) management with a computerized decision support system (CDS) to usual care (control) in the primary care setting of Nova Scotia, Canada. The objective of this analysis was to compare the resource use and costs between CDS and usual care groups. Case costing data, 12-month self-administered questionnaires, and monthly diaries from IMPACT-AF were used in this analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to compare costs and resource use between groups. All costs are presented in 2021 Canadian dollars and cover the 12-month period of participation in the study. A total of 1,145 patients enrolled in the trial. Case costing data were available for 466 participants (41.1%), 12-month self-administered questionnaire data for 635 participants (56.0%) and monthly diary data for 223 participants (19.7%). Emergency department visits and hospitalizations comprised the most expensive component of AF care. Across all three datasets, there were no statistically significant differences in costs or resource use between CDS and usual care groups. Although there were no significant differences in resource use or costs among CDS and usual care groups in the IMPACT-AF trial, this study provides insight into the methodology and practical challenges of collecting economic data alongside a trial. Clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT01927367, date of registration: 2013-08-20).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
IMPACT-AF is a prospective, randomized, cluster design trial comparing atrial fibrillation (AF) management with a computerized decision support system (CDS) to usual care (control) in the primary care setting of Nova Scotia, Canada. The objective of this analysis was to compare the resource use and costs between CDS and usual care groups.
METHODS
Case costing data, 12-month self-administered questionnaires, and monthly diaries from IMPACT-AF were used in this analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to compare costs and resource use between groups. All costs are presented in 2021 Canadian dollars and cover the 12-month period of participation in the study.
RESULTS
A total of 1,145 patients enrolled in the trial. Case costing data were available for 466 participants (41.1%), 12-month self-administered questionnaire data for 635 participants (56.0%) and monthly diary data for 223 participants (19.7%). Emergency department visits and hospitalizations comprised the most expensive component of AF care. Across all three datasets, there were no statistically significant differences in costs or resource use between CDS and usual care groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Although there were no significant differences in resource use or costs among CDS and usual care groups in the IMPACT-AF trial, this study provides insight into the methodology and practical challenges of collecting economic data alongside a trial.
REGISTRATION
Clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT01927367, date of registration: 2013-08-20).
Identifiants
pubmed: 37853351
doi: 10.1186/s12911-023-02329-7
pii: 10.1186/s12911-023-02329-7
pmc: PMC10585905
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01927367']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
228Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
JAMA. 2022 Dec 13;328(22):2252-2264
pubmed: 36511921
Am Heart J. 2020 Jun;224:35-46
pubmed: 32302788
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332
pubmed: 20332509
J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Jul;53(7):688-95
pubmed: 10941945
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Dec 6;17(1):162
pubmed: 29207961
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Aug 3;10(15):e019783
pubmed: 34315232
Can J Cardiol. 2013 Feb;29(2):229-35
pubmed: 22652091
Am Heart J. 2018 Jul;201:149-157
pubmed: 29807323
J Health Econ. 2014 May;35:34-46
pubmed: 24595066
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Feb;106:32-40
pubmed: 30266633
Trials. 2021 Aug 11;22(1):531
pubmed: 34380542
Can J Cardiol. 2004 Jul;20(9):869-76
pubmed: 15266356
Adv Ther. 2009 Sep;26(9):847-57
pubmed: 19768638
Clin Res Cardiol. 2011 Oct;100(10):897-905
pubmed: 21533828
Soc Indic Res. 2018;137(1):379-390
pubmed: 29651193
Value Health. 2012 Mar-Apr;15(2):240-8
pubmed: 22433754
Can J Cardiol. 2020 Dec;36(12):1847-1948
pubmed: 33191198
Value Health. 2021 Aug;24(8):1172-1181
pubmed: 34372983