Table 1.

Probabilities and Utility Weights for the Markov Model Parameters

Variable	Base case	Range	Reference
Sensitivity of iECG	0.97	0.92–1.00	Lowers et al 24
Specificity of iECG	0.92	0.89–0.93	Lowers et al 24
Prevalence of AF after a stroke/TIA	0.0876
Proportion of patients experienced gastro bleeding with anticoangulant treatment (per yearly cycle)	0.004	…	Connolly et al 2011 25
Proportion of patients experienced intracranial bleeding with anticoangulant treatment (per yearly cycle)	0.006	…	Connolly et al 2011 25
Probability of diagnosing AF using iECG	0.085	0.05–0.10	Yan et al 2020, 15 and Sposato et al 2015 7
Probability of diagnosing AF not using iECG	0.028	…	Yan et al 2020 15
Relative risk of background mortality for patients with AF and no AF	1.66	1.59–1.73	Miyasaka et al 2007 26
Probability of treating with oral anticoagulant in the iECG group	0.44	…	Yan et al 2020 15
Probability of treating with oral anticoagulant in the no iECG group	0.625	…	Yan et al 2020 15
Probability of recurrent stroke without AF (per yearly cycle)	0.021	…	Mohan et al 2011 27
Probability of having a non‐major stroke	0.5	…	Assumption*
Relative risk of all‐cause mortality for NOAC vs no NOAC	0.79	0.62–1.02	Connolly et al 2011 25
Relative risk of stroke for NOAC vs no NOAC	0.37	0.25–0.55	Connolly et al 2011 25
Discontinuation rate with NOAC
First year	0.15	…	Garkina et al 2016 23
Second year onwards	0.02	…	Garkina et al 2016 23
Baseline utility	0.63	0.50–0.76	Sturm et al 2002 28
Utility post a major stroke	0.35	…	Sturm et al 2002 28
Utility post a non‐major stroke	0.55	…	Sturm et al 2002 28
Utility decrement from Holter monitoring	0.0203	…	Diekmann et al 2019 29
Utility decrement from iECG monitoring	0.0020	…	Assumption

AF indicates atrial fibrillation; iECG, smartphone‐based handheld ECG device; NOAC, new oral anticoagulant; and TIA, transient ischemic attack.

^*Assuming equal probability of having a major and non‐major stroke.