Cost of an emerging epidemic: an economic analysis of atrial fibrillation in the UK

Objective: To evaluate the cost of atrial fibrillation (AF) to health and social services in the UK in 1995 and, based on epidemiological trends, to project this estimate to 2000. Design, setting, and main outcome measures: Contemporary estimates of health care activity related to AF were applied to the whole population of the UK on an age and sex specific basis for the year 1995. The activities considered ( and costs calculated) were hospital admissions, outpatient consultations, general practice consultations, and drug treatment ( including the cost of monitoring anticoagulant treatment). By adjusting for the progressive aging of the British population and related increases in hospital admissions, the cost of AF was also projected to the year 2000. Results: There were 534 000 people with AF in the UK during 1995. The direct'' cost of health care for these patients was pound 244 million (similar toE350 million) or 0.62% of total National Health Service ( NHS) expenditure. Hospitalisations and drug prescriptions accounted for 50% and 20% of this expenditure, respectively. Long term nursing home care after hospital admission cost an additional pound46.4 million (similar toE66 million). The direct cost of AF rose to pound459 million (similar toE655 million) in 2000, equivalent to 0.97% of total NHS expenditure based on 1995 figures. Nursing home costs rose to pound111 million (similar toE160 million). Conclusions: AF is an extremely costly public health problem.

Carvedilol reduces the costs of medical care in severe heart failure: An economic analysis of the COPERNICUS study applied to the United Kingdom

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of carvedilol on the costs related to the treatment of severe chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods: Costs for the treatment for heart failure within the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) were applied to resource utilisation data prospectively collected in all patients randomized into the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) Study. Unit-specific, per them (hospital bed day) costs were used to calculate expenditures due to hospitalizations. We also included costs of carvedilol treatment, general practitioner surgery/office visits, hospital out-patient clinic visits and nursing home care based on estimates derived from validated patterns of clinical practice in the UK. Results: The estimated cost of carvedilol therapy and related ambulatory care for the 1156 patients assigned to active treatment was 530,771 pound (44.89 pound per patient/month of follow-up). However, patients assigned to carvedilol were hospitalised less often and accumulated fewer and less expensive days of admission. Consequently, the total estimated cost of hospital care was 3.49 pound million in the carvedilol group compared with 4.24 pound million for the 1133 patients in the placebo arm. The cost of post-discharge care was also less in the carvedilol than in the placebo group (479,200 pound vs. 548,300) pound. Overall, the cost per patient treated in the carvedilol group was 3948 pound compared to 4279 pound in the placebo group. This equated to a cost of 385.98 pound vs. 434.18 pound, respectively, per patient/month of follow-up: an 11.1% reduction in health care costs in favour of carvedilol. Conclusions: These findings suggest that not only can carvedilol treatment increase survival and reduce hospital admissions in patients with severe CHF but that it can also cut costs in the process.

Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer

Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) is the most sensitive tool for screening women who are at high familial risk of breast cancer. Our aim in this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of X-ray mammography (XRM), CE MRI or both strategies combined. In total, 649 women were enrolled in the MARIBS study and screened with both CE MRI and mammography resulting in 1881 screens and 1-7 individual annual screening events. Women aged 35-49 years at high risk of breast cancer, either because they have a strong family history of breast cancer or are tested carriers of a BRCA1, BRCA2 or TP53 mutation or are at a 50% risk of having inherited such a mutation, were recruited from 22 centres and offered annual MRI and XRM for between 2 and 7 years. Information on the number and type of further investigations was collected and specifically calculated unit costs were used to calculate the incremental cost per cancer detected. The numbers of cancer detected was 13 for mammography, 27 for CE MRI and 33 for mammography and CE MRI combined. In the subgroup of BRCA1 (BRCA2) mutation carriers or of women having a first degree relative with a mutation in BRCA1 (BRCA2) corresponding numbers were 3 (6), 12 (7) and 12 (11), respectively. For all women, the incremental cost per cancer detected with CE MRI and mammography combined was 28 pound 284 compared to mammography. When only BRCA1 or the BRCA2 groups were considered, this cost would be reduced to 11 pound 731 (CE MRI vs mammography) and 15 pound 302 (CE MRI and mammography vs mammography). Results were most sensitive to the unit cost estimate for a CE MRI screening test. Contrast-enhanced MRI might be a cost-effective screening modality for women at high risk, particularly for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups. Further work is needed to assess the impact of screening on mortality and health-related quality of life.