Cost-effectiveness of early rhythm control vs. usual care in atrial fibrillation care: an analysis based on data from the EAST-AFNET 4 trial

The randomized, controlled EAST-AFNET 4 trial showed that early rhythm control (ERC) reduces the rate of a composite primary outcome (cardiovascular death, stroke, or hospitalization for worsening heart failure or acute coronary syndrome) by ∼20%. The current study examined the cost-effectiveness of ERC compared to usual care.This within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was based on data from the German subsample of the EAST-AFNET 4 trial (n = 1664/2789 patients). Over a 6-year time horizon and from a healthcare payer's perspective, ERC was compared to usual care regarding costs (hospitalization and medication) and effects (time to primary outcome; years survived). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed to visualize uncertainty. Early rhythm control was associated with higher costs [+€1924, 95% CI (-€399, €4246)], resulting in ICERs of €10 638 per additional year without a primary outcome and €22 536 per life year gained. The probability of ERC being cost-effective compared to usual care was ≥95% or ≥80% at a willingness-to-pay value of ≥€55 000 per additional year without a primary outcome or life year gained, respectively.From a German healthcare payer's perspective, health benefits of ERC may come at reasonable costs as indicated by the ICER point estimates. Taking statistical uncertainty into account, cost-effectiveness of ERC is highly probable at a willingness-to-pay value of ≥€55 000 per additional life year or year without a primary outcome. Future studies examining the cost-effectiveness of ERC in other countries, subgroups with higher benefit from rhythm control therapy, or cost-effectiveness of different modes of ERC are warranted.