For patients with bifascicular block and syncope of unknown origin, different American Heart Association guidelines give Class 2A recommendations for two treatments: the implantable loop recorder (ILR) and empiric pacemaker insertion (PM). Equipoise reflected in guidelines may contribute to uncertainty in management and inefficient resource use. The objective of this analysis is to determine the cost-effectiveness of ILR compared to PM in the management of older adults (age>50 years) with bifascicular block and syncope over two years, from the perspective of a Canadian publicly funded health care system, in the Syncope: Pacing or Recording In ThE Later Years (SPRITELY) trial.

Resource utilization data was collected throughout the trial, and unit costs were assigned (2017 Canadian dollars). Utility was measured at baseline and annually with the EQ-5D-3L. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated as area-under-the-curve, and adjusted for baseline imbalances in utility. Confidence intervals for the incremental cost effectiveness ratio were generated with non-parametric bootstrapping.

Mean cost in participants randomized to PM was CAD 9,759 (USD 7,400), compared to CAD 13,453 (USD 10,200) in participants randomized to ILR. The ILR strategy resulted in 0.020 QALYs more than the PM strategy. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was CAD 186,553 (95% CI: −831,950–1,191,816) (USD 141,900, 95% CI: −632,740–906,440) per additional QALY. In 1,000 bootstrapped replicates, the cost of the ILR strategy was always greater than that of the PM strategy. At the threshold of CAD 50,000 (USD 38,000) per additional QALY, the probability that the ILR strategy is the cost effective option is 0.504.

ILR costs were greater than PM costs, with little difference in QALY outcomes over two-years. Findings are generalizable to patients similar to SPRITELY participants, from the perspective of the Canadian health care system. However, practice pattern variation and payment systems inhibit generalizability to other countries. Future analysis will explore cost and QALY outcomes in countries that participated in the SPRITELY trial.

Screening for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is expected to identify patients at earlier stages of the disease. Early treatment is expected to slow disease progression and delay the need for biologic therapy. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of screening tools for PsA in Canada.

A Markov model was built to estimate the associated costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of screening tools for PsA in patients using topical treatment for psoriasis. The screening tools included: the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening (ToPAS) questionnaire; the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST); the Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (PASE) questionnaire; and the Early ARthritis for Psoriatic patients (EARP) questionnaire. Health states were defined by disability levels, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), and state transition was modeled according to annual disease progression. Screening was assumed to be effective during a 2-year sojourn period. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated based on health-state specific costs and utilities. A probabilistic analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainty. All results were compared with the commonly cited cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD 50,000 (USD 37, 600) per additional QALY.

Screening with the ToPAS questionnaire resulted in cost savings compared with no screening or the EARP questionnaire, with a total cost of CAD 30,706 (USD 23,090) and 17.29 QALYs. The PEST dominated the PASE questionnaire and was more costly and more effective than the ToPAS questionnaire, with an ICER of CAD 312,398 (USD 234,909). The results were most sensitive to test sensitivity and specificity, HAQ progression, and average HAQ score at diagnosis and the start of biologic therapy. A scenario analysis tested screening efficacy for a 1-year period before diagnosis, with the ToPAS questionnaire remaining the most cost-effective option.

Screening was cost-effective compared with no screening at the commonly used cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD 50,000 (USD 37, 600). Value of information analyses will be useful for determining the need to collect further information around test accuracy parameters.