Cardiovascular

Cost-Effectiveness of Anticoagulation Treatment for Subclinical Device-Detected Atrial Fibrillation.

TL;DR

Routinely initiating DOAC therapy in all patients with device-detected subclinical AF is unlikely to be cost-effective, with an ICER of €105,293 per QALY in the base case analysis.

Key Findings

DOAC therapy for device-detected subclinical AF yielded an ICER of €105,293 per QALY in the base case analysis, exceeding the €50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold.

  • Base-case analysis modeled 10,000 patients per strategy (20,000 total) with a mean age of 77 years.
  • DOAC therapy was associated with an additional 0.016 QALYs per patient.
  • Incremental cost was €1,676 per patient in the base case.
  • A 10-year time horizon was used with 3% annual discounting of both costs and QALYs.
  • Analysis was conducted from the health system perspective using Nordic health care cost data.

In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, DOAC therapy was cost-effective in only 35% of simulations and dominated (less costly and more effective) in 38% of simulations.

  • Mean QALY gain in probabilistic sensitivity analysis was 0.016 per patient.
  • Mean incremental cost in probabilistic sensitivity analysis was €2,883 per patient.
  • Mean ICER in probabilistic sensitivity analysis was €176,772 per QALY.
  • Probabilistic sensitivity analysis incorporated 95% CIs from reported treatment effect sizes based on a meta-analysis of trials evaluating DOAC therapy in subclinical AF.

The probability of cost-effectiveness increased with higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores, reaching 52% for patients with scores greater than 4.

  • Probability of cost-effectiveness was 31% for patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score less than 4.
  • Probability of cost-effectiveness was 41% for patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.
  • Probability of cost-effectiveness was 52% for patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score greater than 4.
  • Whether treatment is cost-effective in patients with very high CHA2DS2-VASc scores was described as 'uncertain.'

The economic evaluation used a Markov model incorporating risks of stroke, bleeding, and mortality derived from randomized clinical trials of DOAC therapy in subclinical AF.

  • Baseline characteristics and event risks reflected those observed in randomized clinical trials of device-detected subclinical AF.
  • Treatment effect associations were based on a meta-analysis of trials evaluating DOAC therapy in subclinical AF.
  • The model was run with 10,000 patients per strategy over a 10-year time horizon.
  • Modeling was conducted on March 10, 2026.
  • Treatment and event costs were derived from Nordic health care data.

Anticoagulation treatment for subclinical device-detected atrial fibrillation remains an area of clinical equipoise with previously unknown cost-effectiveness.

  • Subclinical AF is detected by implanted cardiac devices rather than through symptomatic presentation or standard ECG screening.
  • The study was motivated by the unresolved clinical question of whether DOAC therapy should be routinely initiated in patients with device-detected AF.
  • The evaluation was designed to inform this unresolved clinical decision using health system cost data.

What This Means

This research suggests that routinely prescribing blood thinners (direct oral anticoagulants, or DOACs) to all patients whose implanted heart devices detect subclinical atrial fibrillation (a type of irregular heart rhythm) is unlikely to be a cost-effective use of healthcare resources. Using a computer simulation of 20,000 patients based on real clinical trial data, the researchers found that while DOACs do provide a small health benefit (about 0.016 additional quality-adjusted life years per patient), the cost per unit of benefit gained far exceeds the commonly accepted threshold of €50,000 per quality-adjusted life year, coming in at over €105,000 in the main analysis. The findings become more nuanced when patient risk is taken into account. Patients with higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores — a clinical scoring system that estimates stroke risk based on factors like age, heart failure, diabetes, and prior stroke — were more likely to receive cost-effective treatment. Among patients with the highest risk scores (greater than 4), there was a 52% probability that treatment would be cost-effective, compared to just 31% for lower-risk patients. However, even in this high-risk group, the evidence remained uncertain. This research matters because implanted cardiac devices are increasingly common and frequently detect these silent episodes of atrial fibrillation, creating pressure on clinicians to act. This study suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach of treating everyone with detected subclinical AF may not represent good value for healthcare systems, and that treatment decisions may need to be more carefully targeted toward patients at the highest stroke risk. The results are based on Nordic healthcare costs and may not directly apply to other healthcare systems with different cost structures.

Have a question about this study?

Citation

Winstén A, Langén V, Airaksinen K, Teppo K. (2026). Cost-Effectiveness of Anticoagulation Treatment for Subclinical Device-Detected Atrial Fibrillation.. JAMA network open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.17213