Comparison of cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation with dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation across countries

Methods for Economic Evaluations of Novel Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a severe epidemiological and public health concern among the elderly population worldwide, with substantial economic and social burdens. Economic evaluations can play an essential role in optimizing the utilization of scarce resources. In recent years, the number of economic evaluation studies related to AF has increased due to the rising number of AF patients, the continuous updating of clinical data, and the emergence of real-world evidence. However, there are still deficiencies in model settings and parameter sources in relevant studies.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to review the existing economic evaluations of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with AF and summarize the evidence and methods applied.

METHODS

A comprehensive and systematic search was conducted on electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (WOS), and The Cochrane Library, from the date of database creation to November 2022. The reporting quality of included literature was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement.

RESULTS

A total of 102 studies were included in the review, with 200 comparisons between NOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), as well as 58 comparisons between different NOACs. The healthcare sector and payer perspectives were the most common, and accordingly, the majority of the evaluations considered only direct medical costs. Most studies used Markov cohort models with the number of health states ranging from 4 to 29. Of included studies, 80 (78%) considered event recurrence and complications, and 78 (76%) considered discontinuation and second-line therapy. All of the studies applied uncertainty analysis to explore the robustness of the results. Of all 200 NOACs-VKAs comparisons, 149 (75%) showed that NOACs were more cost-effective; this proportion was 84% (139 out of 165) in high-income countries but decreased to 29% (10 out of 35) in middle- and low-income countries. Most (82%) of the 28 items in the CHEERS 2022 checklist were elucidated in the majority of included studies. A minority (only 39%) of included studies demonstrated high reporting quality.

CONCLUSION

NOACs may be more cost-effective than VKAs in patients with AF, but this conclusion applies to high-income countries, whereas VKAs may be more cost-effective in middle- and low-income countries. The reporting quality of included studies was variable, and certain methodological issues were presented. This study highlights the economic evaluation methodology of NOACs in patients with AF and provides recommendations for modeling methods and future studies.

Medico-economic comparison of two anticoagulant treatment strategies: Vitamin K antagonists vs. direct oral anticoagulants in older adults in nursing homes in France. The "MIKADO" study

OBJECTIVES

Currently, two classes of oral anticoagulants are available in nursing home residents: vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). DOACs have a higher net clinical benefit than VKAs but DOACs are about 10 times more expensive than VKAs. The objective of our study was to assess and compare the overall costs of anti-coagulant strategy (VKA or DOAC), i.e., including drugs, laboratory costs and time spent in human capital (nurses and medical time) in nursing homes in France.

METHODS

This was an observational, multicenter, prospective study including nine nursing homes in France. Among these nursing homes, 241 patients aged 75 years and older and treated with VKA (n = 140) or DOAC (n = 101) therapy accepted to participate in the study.

RESULTS

During the 3-month follow-up period, the adjusted mean costs per patient were higher for VKA than DOACs for nurse care (€327 (57) vs. €154 (56), p<.0001) for general practitioner care (€297 (91) vs. €204 (91), p = 0.02), for coordinating physicians care (€13 (7) vs. €5 (7), p < 0.07), for laboratory tests (€23 (5) vs. €5 (5), p<.0001), but were lower for drug costs (€8 (3) vs. €165 (3), p<.0001). The average overall cost for 3 months per patient was €668 (140) with VKA vs. €533 (139) with DOAC (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that in nursing homes despite a higher drug cost, DOAC therapy is associated with a lower total cost and less time used by nurses and physicians for drug monitoring when compared to VKA.

Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

OBJECTIVES

Several studies have evaluated the economic evaluation of a group of medications known as novel oral anticoagulant drugs (NOACs) in recent years. The aim of this study is to review and systematically analyze the cost-utility studies results of warfarin compared with other NOAC drugs in atrial fibrillation patients.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify all studies evaluating the NOAC medications in comparison with warfarin. For this purpose, PubMed, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from 2013 to 2022. Articles were independently screened with inclusion criteria, and full texts were reviewed. First, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the articles. Then, the costs and outcomes of the studies were analyzed, and findings were appraised critically.

RESULTS

A total of 84 costs-per-quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) cases were extracted from the studies in which the share of rivaroxaban, edoxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran were 31%, 13%, 29%, and 27%, respectively. The median cost per QALY of rivaroxaban, edoxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran was 21 910$/QALY, 22 096$/QALY, 17 765$/QALY, and 24 161$/QALY, respectively. Subgroup analysis based on perspective showed that dabigatran had the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and edoxaban had the lowest ICER value. Edoxaban and apixaban had the highest and the lowest cost per QALY from an insurance perspective, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Despite the differences and variations in the economic evaluation studies of NOAC drugs, these drugs have shown acceptable cost-effectiveness in developed and developing countries. Among NOAC drugs, apixaban has the lowest ICER and the highest cost-effectiveness.

Economic evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) by pooling incremental net benefits (INBs).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

We searched PubMed, Scopus and Centre for Evaluation of Value and Risks in Health Registry from inception to December 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with AF.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The INB was defined as a difference of incremental effectiveness multiplied by willing to pay threshold minus the incremental cost; a positive INB indicated favour treatment. These INBs were pooled (stratified by level of country income, perspective, time-horizon, model types) with a random-effects model if heterogeneity existed, otherwise a fixed effects model was applied. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I² statistic. Risk of bias was assessed using the economic evaluations bias (ECOBIAS) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 100 eligible economic evaluation studies (224 comparisons) were included. For high-income countries (HICs) from a third-party payer (TPP) perspective, the pooled INBs for DOAC versus VKA pairs were significantly cost-effective with INBs (95% CI) of $6632 ($2961.67 to $10 303.72; I²=59.9%), $6353.24 ($4076.03 to $8630.45; I²=0%), $7664.58 ($2979.79 to $12 349.37; I²=0%) and $8573.07 ($1877.05 to $15 269.09; I²=0%) for dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban and edoxaban relative to VKA, respectively but only dabigatran was significantly cost-effective from societal perspective (SP) with an INB of $11 746.96 ($2429.34 to $21 064.59; I²=52.4%). The pooled INBs of all comparisons for upper-middle income countries (UMICs) were not significantly cost-effective. The ECOBIAS checklist indicated that risk of bias was mostly low for most items with the exception of five items which should be less influenced on pooling INBs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis provides comprehensive economic evidence that allows policy makers to generalise cost-effectiveness data to their local context. All DOACs may be cost-effective compared with VKA in HICs with TPP perspective. The pooling results produced moderate to high heterogeneity particularly in UMICs. Further studies are required to inform UMICs with SP.

PROSPERO REGISTERATION NUMBER

CRD 42019146610.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban in Chinese Patients With Stable Cardiovascular Disease

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone for patients with stable cardiovascular diseases in the China.

Methods: We used TreeAge 2019 to construct a Markov model to assess the direct healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years for three therapies, namely low-does rivaroxaban plus aspirin, rivaroxaban alone, and aspirin alone. Transitional probabilities were derived from the COMPASS trial, and the costs and utilities were obtained from the Chinese Health Care Statistical Yearbook and published studies. Use the Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to describe the results. The willingness-to-pay threshold is set at US$11,000 (China’s 2020 Gross National Product per capita).

Result: In patients with stable cardiovascular disease, the increased cost per quality-adjusted life year gained in the low-dose rivaroxaban combined with aspirin group compared to the aspirin alone group was US$7937.30. The increased cost per quality-adjusted life year gained in the rivaroxaban alone group versus the aspirin alone group was US$15,045.78.

Conclusion: A low-does rivaroxaban plus aspirin therapy may be cost-effective in the secondary prevention of stable cardiovascular disease in patients.

Cost-utility analysis of increasing uptake of universal seasonal quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) in children aged 6 months and older in Germany

Seasonal influenza causes many cases and related deaths in Europe annually, despite ongoing vaccination programs for older adults and people at high-risk of complications. Children have the highest risk of infection and play a key role in disease transmission. Our cost-utility analysis, based on a dynamic transmission model, estimated the impact of increasing the current vaccination coverage with inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine in Germany to all (healthy and high-risk) children under 5 years of age (40% uptake), or under 18 years (40% uptake), or only high-risk children under 18 years (90% uptake). Eight influenza complications were modeled, hospitalization and death rates were based on age and risk status. All three vaccination strategies provided more health benefits than the existing vaccination situation, reducing influenza cases, complications, hospitalizations and deaths across the entire population. The strategy targeting all children under 5 years was highly cost-effective (€6/quality-adjusted life-year gained, payer perspective). The other strategies were cost saving from the payer and societal perspectives. The vaccination strategy targeting all children under 18 years was estimated to provide the most health benefits (preventing on average 1.66 million cases, 179,000 complications, 14,000 hospitalizations and 3,600 deaths due to influenza annually) and the most cost savings (annually €20.5 million and €731.3 million from payer and societal perspectives, respectively). Our analysis provides policy decision-makers with evidence supporting strategies to expand childhood influenza vaccination, to directly protect children, and indirectly all other unvaccinated age groups, in order to reduce the humanistic and economic burden on healthcare systems and society.

Updating the Cost Effectiveness of Oral Anticoagulants for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Based on Varying Stroke and Bleed Risk Profiles

BACKGROUND

Previous investigations into the cost effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants only considered individual stroke risk but not bleed risk even though bleeding is an important and potentially fatal side effect for anticoagulated patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban vs warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation with varying stroke/bleed risk profiles over a lifetime horizon.

METHODS

A Markov micro-simulation was adapted to examine the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted survival of five anticoagulants from a US private payer's perspective. The study hypothetical cohort consisted of 10,000 patients with atrial fibrillation with age, CHA₂DS₂-VASc, and HAS-BLED scores similar to a commercially insured patient with atrial fibrillation cohort. Model input parameters including the efficacy and safety of each strategy, utilities, and cost were estimated from public sources, published literature, and analysis conducted in the IBM MarketScan database. Lifetime cost, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were assessed for each treatment strategy. Subgroup analyses stratified by age, stroke risk score alone, bleed risk score alone and both were performed. Uncertainty was assessed by a deterministic sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis suggested dabigatran was the optimal treatment with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $35,055 per quality-adjusted life-year relative to warfarin. Subgroup analyses stratified by age, stroke risk score, and bleed risk score alone were largely consistent with the base-case analysis. Subgroup analyses stratified by both stroke and bleed risk score showed edoxaban was the preferred treatment in patients with a low stroke and a low or medium bleed risk, and patients with a high stroke and low bleed risk. Apixaban was the preferred treatment in patients with a medium stroke and high bleed risk. Results of the deterministic sensitivity analysis indicate the model results were most sensitive to the drug cost and hazard ratio for stroke and bleeding event. Results of the probability sensitivity analysis showed dabigatran is cost effective vs. other treatments in 32.8% and 42.4% of iterations at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year and a willingness to pay of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

From a US private payer's perspective, dabigatran appears cost effective compared with other anticoagulants. This study indicated risk stratification especially considering both stroke and bleed risk simultaneously is important not only in clinical practice but also in health technology assessment exercises among patients with atrial fibrillation.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in secondary prevention among patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone for patients with stable cardiovascular diseases in the Taiwan setting.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov model to project the lifetime direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years of both therapies. Transitional probabilities were derived from the COMPASS trial, and the costs and utilities were obtained from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database and published studies. One-way, scenario, subgroup, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was presented as the outcome. The threshold of willingness-to-pay was set at US$76,368 (3 times the gross domestic product per capita of Taiwan). All analyses were operated by TreeAge 2019 and Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in the patients with stable cardiovascular diseases, coronary artery diseases, and peripheral artery diseases were US$83,459, US$69,852 and -US$13,823 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probabilities of cost-effectiveness for the regimen with rivaroxaban among those with cardiovascular diseases and coronary artery diseases were 44.1% and 65.3% at US$76,368.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is less likely to be a cost-effective alternative to aspirin in secondary prevention for the patients with stable cardiovascular diseases; however, among these patients, the regimen may have pharmacoeconomic incentives for the group merely having chronic coronary artery diseases from the Taiwan national payer's perspective. The pharmacoeconomic incentives are influenced by the drug price, event treatment fees, and willingness-to-pay threshold.

A cost-effectiveness analysis model of Preventicus atrial fibrillation screening from the point of view of statutory health insurance in Germany

BACKGROUND

With atrial fibrillation (AF) the risk of stroke is 4.2-fold increased to a comparable population without AF. This risk decreases by up to 70% if AF is detected early enough and effective stroke preventive measures are taken as recommended by international guidelines. Long-term studies found large number of subjects with undiagnosed AF. Preventicus Heartbeats" is a hands-on screening tool for use on smartphone to diagnose AF with high sensitivity and specificity. The aim of this study is to research the cost-effectiveness of systematic screening for AF with this smartphone application.

METHOD

Employing a Markov model we analysed the cost-effectiveness of the "Preventicus Heartbeats" screening for Germany, i.e. from the perspective of German statutory sick funds.

RESULTS

For a cohort of 10,000 insured 75-year-old the use of the diagnostic app could avoid 60 strokes in the remaining lifetime thereof 32 strokes in the next four years. Former models have applied similar cohorts. The same cohort showed an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) in the remaining lifetime of 165 QALYs in the scenario with screening versus. without screening and a decrease in discounted lifetime costs (including risk compensation effects) of €129 per participant (€148 for male, €114 for female participants).

CONCLUSIONS

The modelling demonstrates the health benefits and economic effects of an implementation of a systematic screening on AF with "Preventicus Heartbeats", given the perspective of the German payer, the statutory health care system.

The contribution of real-world evidence to cost-effectiveness analysis: case study of Dabigatran etexilate in France

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess the differences between an ex ante and an ex post cost-effectiveness analysis of Dabigatran etexilate vs VKAs for the prevention of thromboembolic events in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients and to draw lessons on the design and use of real-world data for decision making.

METHODS

The same model was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness ratio using two sets of parameters. One set included the efficacy and safety outcomes data from RE-LY, the pivotal trial comparing Dabigatran to warfarin; cost data came from an ex ante publication. Outcomes data for the second set came from real-world data studies. Cost data were a mix of real-world data and other sources. Two treatment strategies were compared: treatment initiation by either Dabigatran or VKAs, followed by either VKAs or Dabigatran. A crude comparison of results was performed; the impact of data differences was then assessed. Probabilistic sensitivity results of the two analyses were compared.

RESULTS

With real-world evidence, Dabigatran at both dosages was more effective for the prevention of ischemic strokes, intra-cranial haemorrhages, with less major extra-cranial haemorrhages and a similar risk of myocardial infarction. Using clinical trial data, Dabigatran150 mg (resp. Dabigatran110 mg) as a first-line treatment vs VKAs yielded an ICER of € 8077/QALY (resp. € 13,116/QALY). Real-world evidence scenarios were cost-saving and more effective for both dosages.

CONCLUSION

The reassessment of outcomes and cost data had an impact on results, improving the efficiency of Dabigatran. We identify methodological issues which should be discussed if post-launch RWE based cost-effectiveness data become a standard in HTA decision making.

The Guideline-Policy Gap in Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants Usage in Atrial Fibrillation: Evidence, Practice, and Public Policy Considerations

Atrial fibrillation has a high disease burden-both in prevalence and associated consequences. Despite anticoagulation being an effective treatment in atrial fibrillation, stroke prevention is slow to reflect evidence-based practice. Real-world data reveal a substantial portion of patients who would benefit from anticoagulation, yet do not receive it adequately or at all. A large part of this suboptimal treatment is due to the underutilization of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). In response to abundant evidence published over a short timeframe, international guidelines have adopted DOAC usage ahead of policy and fund holders. This paper reviews the evidence and values that influence published guidelines, patient-physician decision making, and policy framework on DOAC usage. An important factor is the access gap between patients who qualify for DOAC according to evidence-based guidelines and the subset of this cohort who are eligible for DOAC based on government funded policy. We analyse the Canadian health system in detail-including drug approval and funding process. Health care systems in other countries are explored, with emphasis on similar universal health care systems that may help overcome barriers common to Canada. We will discuss strategies to: (1) improve awareness of the risk and preventability of stroke; (2) enable physicians to provide evidence-based DOAC usage; (3) empower patients to improve adherence and persistence; (4) collect real-life data that encourages patient self-monitoring, physician outcomes auditing, and building evidence that is useful for policy makers; and (5) use postmarketing data in negotiating shared risk management between pharmaceuticals and government to improve access to DOACs.

Cost-effectiveness of the recombinant zoster vaccine in the German population aged ≥60 years old

Each year, around 300,000 Herpes Zoster (HZ) cases are observed in the German population, resulting in costs over €182 million to society. The objective of this study was to estimate the potential public health and economic impact of the new Adjuvanted Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) in the German population ≥ 60 years of age (YOA) and to identify the optimal age of vaccination. We used a static, multi-cohort Markov model that followed a hypothetical cohort of 1 million people ≥ 60 YOA life-long after vaccination using German-specific inputs. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated based on the societal perspective. The coverage of RZV was set at 40% with a second-dose compliance of 70%. Vaccinating the population aged ≥ 60 YOA would result in 45,000 HZ cases avoided, 1,713 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at a total cost of approximately €63 million compared to 38,000 cases avoided, 1,545 QALYs gained at a total cost of approximately €68 million in the population ≥ 70 YOA. This would result in an ICER of approximately €37,000 and €44,000/QALY, for the age cohort ≥ 60 and ≥ 70 YOA, respectively. Scenario analyses demonstrated that vaccinating at age 60 or 65 YOA would show greater public health impact and would result in the lowest observed ICER compared to vaccinating at 70 YOA. In conclusion, starting vaccination with RZV in the German population ≥ 60 YOA would demonstrate the best value from a public health and economic standpoint.

Pharmacologic Hemostatic Agents in Total Joint Arthroplasty-A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Total knee and hip arthroplasties can be associated with substantial blood loss, affecting morbidity and even mortality. Two pharmacological antifibrinolytics, ε-aminocaproic acid (EACA) and tranexamic acid (TXA) have been used to minimize perioperative blood loss, but both have associated morbidity. Given the added cost of these medications and the risks associated with then, a cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken to ascertain the best strategy.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was constructed using the payoffs of cost (in United States dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life expectancy, in days). The medical literature was used to ascertain various complications, their probabilities, utility values, and direct medical costs associated with various health states. A time horizon of 10 years and a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 was used.

RESULTS

The total cost and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life expectancy, in days) was $459.77, $951.22, and $1174.87 and 3411.19, 3248.02, and 3342.69 for TXA, no pharmacologic hemostatic agent, and EACA, respectively. Because TXA is less expensive and more effective than the competing alternatives, it was the favored strategy. One-way sensitivity analyses for probability of transfusion and myocardial infarction for all 3 strategies revealed that TXA remains the dominant strategy across all clinically plausible values.

CONCLUSION

TXA, when compared with no pharmacologic hemostatic agent and with EACA, is the most cost-effective strategy to minimize intraoperative blood loss in hip and knee total joint arthroplasties. These findings are robust to sensitivity analyses using clinically plausible probabilities.

Oral anticoagulants for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease, and for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Warfarin is effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but anticoagulation is underused in clinical care. The risk of venous thromboembolic disease during hospitalisation can be reduced by low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH): warfarin is the most frequently prescribed anticoagulant for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Warfarin-related bleeding is a major reason for hospitalisation for adverse drug effects. Warfarin is cheap but therapeutic monitoring increases treatment costs. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have more rapid onset and offset of action than warfarin, and more predictable dosing requirements.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the best oral anticoagulant/s for prevention of stroke in AF and for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of VTE.

DESIGN

Four systematic reviews, network meta-analyses (NMAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of randomised controlled trials.

SETTING

Hospital (VTE primary prevention and acute treatment) and primary care/anticoagulation clinics (AF and VTE secondary prevention).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients eligible for anticoagulation with warfarin (stroke prevention in AF, acute treatment or secondary prevention of VTE) or LMWH (primary prevention of VTE).

INTERVENTIONS

NOACs, warfarin and LMWH, together with other interventions (antiplatelet therapy, placebo) evaluated in the evidence network.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Efficacy Stroke, symptomatic VTE, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis and symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Safety Major bleeding, clinically relevant bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage. We also considered myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality and evaluated cost-effectiveness.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, reference lists of published NMAs and trial registries. We searched MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. The stroke prevention in AF review search was run on the 12 March 2014 and updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2010 to September 2014. The search for the three reviews in VTE was run on the 19 March 2014, updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2008 to September 2014.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers screened search results, extracted and checked data, and assessed risk of bias. For each outcome we conducted standard meta-analysis and NMA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using discrete-time Markov models.

RESULTS

Apixaban (Eliquis^®, Bristol-Myers Squibb, USA; Pfizer, USA) [5 mg bd (twice daily)] was ranked as among the best interventions for stroke prevention in AF, and had the highest expected net benefit. Edoxaban (Lixiana^®, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan) [60 mg od (once daily)] was ranked second for major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Neither the clinical effectiveness analysis nor the CEA provided strong evidence that NOACs should replace postoperative LMWH in primary prevention of VTE. For acute treatment and secondary prevention of VTE, we found little evidence that NOACs offer an efficacy advantage over warfarin, but the risk of bleeding complications was lower for some NOACs than for warfarin. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of > £5000, apixaban (5 mg bd) had the highest expected net benefit for acute treatment of VTE. Aspirin or no pharmacotherapy were likely to be the most cost-effective interventions for secondary prevention of VTE: our results suggest that it is not cost-effective to prescribe NOACs or warfarin for this indication.

CONCLUSIONS

NOACs have advantages over warfarin in patients with AF, but we found no strong evidence that they should replace warfarin or LMWH in primary prevention, treatment or secondary prevention of VTE.

LIMITATIONS

These relate mainly to shortfalls in the primary data: in particular, there were no head-to-head comparisons between different NOAC drugs.

FUTURE WORK

Calculating the expected value of sample information to clarify whether or not it would be justifiable to fund one or more head-to-head trials.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005324, CRD42013005331 and CRD42013005330.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

THE GAP BETWEEN ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS ON DABIGATRAN FOR ATRIAL FIBRILLATION

OBJECTIVES

As model-based economic evaluations (MBEEs) are widely used to make decisions in the context of policy, it is imperative that they represent clinical practice. Here, we assess the relevance of MBEEs on dabigatran for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review on the basis of a developed questionnaire, tailored to oral anticoagulation in patients with AF. Included studies had a full body text in English, compared dabigatran with a vitamin K antagonist, were not dedicated to one or more subgroup(s), and yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The relevance of all MBEEs was assessed on the basis of ten context-independent factors, which encompassed clinical outcomes and treatment duration. The MBEEs performed for the United States were assessed on the basis of seventeen context-dependent factors, which were related to the country's target population and clinical environment.

RESULTS

The search yielded twenty-nine MBEEs, of which six were performed for the United States. On average, 54 percent of the context-independent factors were included per study, and 37 percent of the seventeen context-dependent factors in the U.S.

STUDIES

The share of relevant factors per study did not increase over time.

CONCLUSIONS

MBEEs on dabigatran leave out several relevant factors, limiting their usefulness to decision makers. We strongly urge health economic researchers to improve the relevance of their MBEEs by including context-independent relevance factors, and modeling context-dependent factors befitting the decision context concerned.

The cost-effectiveness and monetary benefits of dabigatran in the prevention of arterial thromboembolism for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) causes a significant health and economic burden to the Dutch society. Dabigatran was proven to have at least similar efficacy and a similar or better safety profile when compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in preventing arterial thromboembolism in patients with AF.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and monetary benefit of dabigatran vs VKAs in Dutch patients with non-valvular AF. Value-based pricing considerations and corresponding negotiations on dabigatran will be explicitly considered.

METHODS

The base case economic analysis was conducted from the societal perspective. Health effects and costs were analysed using a Markov model. The main model inputs were derived from the RE-LY trial and Dutch observational data. Univariate, probabilistic sensitivity, and various scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Dabigatran was cost saving compared to VKAs. A total of 4,552 QALYs were gained, and €13,892,288 was saved in a cohort of 10,000 AF patients. The economic value of dabigatran was strongly related to the costs of VKA control that are averted. Notably, dabigatran was cost saving compared to VKAs if annual costs of VKA control exceeded €159 per person, or dabigatran costs were below €2.81 per day.

CONCLUSION

Dabigatran was cost saving compared to VKAs for the prevention of atrial thromboembolism in patients with non-valvular AF in the Netherlands. This result appeared robust in the sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, volume based reduction of the price in the Netherlands will further increase the monetary benefits of dabigatran.

Comparison of Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND

Decision on the most appropriate oral anticoagulation therapy for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is difficult because multiple treatment options are available, and these vary in their clinical effects and relevant nonclinical characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

To use a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to compare the oral anticoagulants apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and vitamin K antagonist (VKAs; specifically warfarin) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

We identified the evaluation criteria through a targeted literature review and clinical judgment. The final evaluation model included nine clinical events and four other criteria. We ranked possibly fatal clinical event criteria on the basis of the differences in risks of fatal events and the corresponding window of therapeutic opportunity, as observed in clinical trials. Clinical judgment was used to rank other criteria. Full criteria ranking was used to calculate centroid weights, which were combined with individual treatment performances to estimate the overall value score for each treatment.

RESULTS

Using such an MCDA, dabigatran yielded the highest overall value, approximately 6% higher than that of the second-best treatment, apixaban. Dabigatran also had the highest first-rank probability (0.72) in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Rivaroxaban performed worse than the other non-VKA oral anticoagulants, but better than VKAs (with both having 0.00 first-rank probability). The results were insensitive to changes in model structure.

CONCLUSIONS

When all key oral anticoagulant value criteria and their relative importance are investigated in an MCDA, dabigatran appears to rank the highest and warfarin the lowest.

Cost-Utility of Quadrivalent Versus Trivalent Influenza Vaccine in Germany, Using an Individual-Based Dynamic Transmission Model

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza infection is primarily caused by circulation of two influenza A strain subtypes and strains from two B lineages that vary each year. Trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) contains only one of the two B-lineage strains, resulting in mismatches between vaccine strains and the predominant circulating B lineage. Quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) includes both B-lineage strains. The objective was to estimate the cost-utility of introducing QIV to replace TIV in Germany.

METHODS

An individual-based dynamic transmission model (4Flu) using German data was used to provide realistic estimates of the impact of TIV and QIV on age-specific influenza infections. Cases were linked to health and economic outcomes to calculate the cost-utility of QIV versus TIV, from both a societal and payer perspective. Costs and effects were discounted at 3.0 and 1.5 % respectively, with 2014 as the base year. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Using QIV instead of TIV resulted in additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost savings from the societal perspective (i.e. it represents the dominant strategy) and an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of €14,461 per QALY from a healthcare payer perspective. In all univariate analyses, QIV remained cost-effective (ICUR <€50,000). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, QIV was cost-effective in >98 and >99 % of the simulations from the societal and payer perspective, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This analysis suggests that QIV in Germany would provide additional health gains while being cost-saving to society or costing €14,461 per QALY gained from the healthcare payer perspective, compared with TIV.

A Systematic Literature Review on the Cost-Effectiveness of Apixaban for Stroke Prevention in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Economic evaluations are becoming increasingly important due to limitations in economic resources, the expense of many new treatments, the need to allocate health spending as effectively as possible, and the need to inform decision makers. Based on the data from the apixaban studies (ARISTOTLE and AVERROES), several economic evaluations have been performed in various countries to demonstrate the efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin and aspirin or other new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for preventing stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review of published economic evaluations with apixaban in the indication of stroke prevention in patients with NVAF.

METHODS

A search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Index Medicus Español was conducted in June 2015. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established. The main characteristics were recorded for all relevant articles after being reviewed. In addition, a weighted version of the Drummond's checklist was used to further assess the quality of the selected studies.

RESULTS

After review, 26 cost-effectiveness analyses through Markov models were included; the identified economic evaluations represent different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds, discount rates, medical costs, and healthcare systems. Apixaban was compared with warfarin/acenocoumarol in 7 of them (27%), with warfarin/NOACs in 14 (54%), with aspirin in 2 (8%), and with warfarin/aspirin in 3 (11%). Models were conducted from Europe (69%), USA (23%), Australia (4%), and Latin America (4%). All models reported cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, 92% reported using a payer perspective, and 8% using a societal perspective; the median quality score of the selected studies was 89 (out of 119), with a range of 55-103. In models performed in Europe, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of apixaban versus warfarin ranged from €5607/QALY to €57,245/QALY, while ICERs versus aspirin ranged from being dominant to €7334/QALY. In models carried out in the USA, ICERs of apixaban versus warfarin ranged from being dominant to $93,063/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Different cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that apixaban is a cost-effective therapeutic option according to the WTP thresholds used in countries where cost-effectiveness analyses, were performed.

FUNDING

BMS and Pfizer.

Overcoming global challenges in stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation: The role of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

Atrial fibrillation is the world's most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with a significantly increased risk of stroke. The global burden of atrial fibrillation is rising, commensurate with the ageing population. Well-controlled vitamin K antagonist-based anticoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of stroke secondary to atrial fibrillation by two-thirds. However, patients with atrial fibrillation have frequently been denied anticoagulation because of a variety of perceived risks related to bleeding, falls, chronological age, and poor compliance. Even when vitamin K antagonists are used, maximum benefit and safety are only delivered when high quality control of therapy (TTR > 70%) is achieved, which has proven remarkably difficult in many health-care systems and amongst many patient groups. The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) offer solutions to many of the challenges of achieving widespread, safe, and effective anticoagulation for stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation, yet their uptake into routine clinical practice remains variable. The evidence supporting their more widespread use to overcome the challenges of stroke prophylaxis for atrial fibrillation is reviewed in this article.

Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US

BACKGROUND

Understanding the value of new anticoagulation therapies compared with existing therapies is of paramount importance in today's cost-conscious and efficiency-driven health care environment. Edoxaban and rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with CHADS2 scores ≥2 have been evaluated in pivotal trials versus warfarin. The relative value of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban would be of interest to health care stakeholders and patients who prefer a once-daily treatment option for long-term stroke prevention in NVAF.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of two once-daily regimens of novel oral anticoagulation therapy - edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) versus rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) - for stroke prevention in NVAF patients from a US health-plan perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model simulated lifetime risk and treatment of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death in NVAF patients treated with edoxaban or rivaroxaban. Efficacy and safety data were derived from a network meta-analysis that utilized data from patients enrolled in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 and ROCKET-AF. Health care cost and utility data were obtained from published sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used as thresholds for "highly cost-effective", "cost-effective", and "not cost-effective" treatment options, respectively, as per American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines.

RESULTS

Edoxaban was dominant relative to rivaroxaban, such that it was associated with lower total health care costs and better effectiveness in terms of QALYs in the base-case analysis. Results were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analyses that showed edoxaban as either dominant or a highly cost-effective alternative (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000) to rivaroxaban in 88.4% of 10,000 simulations.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study showed that the once-daily edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) regimen is a cost-saving or highly cost-effective treatment relative to rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) for stroke prevention in NVAF patients with CHADS2 ≥2.

[New oral anticoagulants for prophylaxis of stroke. Results of an expert conference on practical use in geriatric patients]

Geriatric patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) are increasingly being treated with novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) to prevent ischemic stroke. This article highlights the outcome of an expert meeting on the practical use of NOAC in elderly patients. An interdisciplinary group of experts discussed the current situation of stroke prevention in geriatric patients and its practical management in daily clinical practice. The topic was examined through focused impulse presentations and critical analyses as the basis for the expert consensus. The key issues are summarized in this paper. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines from 2012 for the management of patients with non-valvular AF recommend NOAC as the preferred treatment and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) only as an alternative option. Currently, the NOAC factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban and the thrombin inhibitor dabigatran are more commonly used in clinical practice for patients with AF. Although these drugs have many similarities and are often grouped together it is important to recognize that the pharmacology and dose regimes differ between compounds. Especially n elderly patients NOAC drugs have some advantages compared to VKA, e.g. less drug-drug interactions with concomitant medication and a more favorable risk-benefit ratio mostly driven by the reduction of bleeding. Treatment of anticoagulation in geriatric patients requires weighing the serious risk of stroke against an equally high risk of major bleeding and pharmacoeconomic considerations. Geriatric patients in particular have the greatest benefit from NOAC, which can also be administered in cases of reduced renal function. Regular control of the indications is indispensable, as also for all other medications of the patient. The use of NOAC should certainly not be withheld from geriatric patients who have a clear need for oral anticoagulation.

Cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with edoxaban compared to warfarin in Germany

We compared the cost-utility analysis for edoxaban at both doses with that of dabigatran at both doses, rivaroxaban, and apixaban (non vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, NOAC) in a German population. Data of clinical outcome events were taken from edoxaban's ENGAGE-AF, dabigatran's RE-LY, rivaroxaban's ROCKET, and apixaban's ARISTOTLE trials. The base-case analyses of a 65-year-old person with a CHADS2 score >1 gained 0.17 and 0.21 quality-adjusted life years over warfarin for 30 mg od and 60 mg od edoxaban, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 50.000 and 68.000 euro per quality-adjusted life years for the higher and lower dose of edoxaban (Monte Carlo simulation). These findings were also similar to those for apixaban and more cost-effective than the other NOAC regimens. The current market costs for direct oral anticoagulants are high in relation to the quality of life gained from a German public health care insurance perspective. The willingness-to-pay threshold was lowest for 60 mg edoxaban compared to all direct oral anticoagulants and for 30 mg edoxaban compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

Cost effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in two different European healthcare settings

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to investigate the cost effectiveness of apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran compared with coumarin derivatives for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in a country with specialized anticoagulation clinics (the Netherlands) and in a country without these clinics (the UK).

METHODS

A decision-analytic Markov model was used to analyse the cost effectiveness of apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran compared with coumarin derivatives in the Netherlands and the UK over a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

In the Netherlands, the use of rivaroxaban, apixaban, or dabigatran increased health by 0.166, 0.365, and 0.374 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with coumarin derivatives, but also increased costs by 5,681, 4,754, and 5,465, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were 34,248, 13,024, and 14,626 per QALY gained. In the UK, health was increased by 0.302, 0.455, and 0.461 QALYs, and the incremental costs were similar for all three new oral anticoagulants (5,118-5,217). The ICERs varied from 11,172 to 16,949 per QALY gained. In the Netherlands, apixaban had the highest chance (37 %) of being cost effective at a threshold of 20,000; in the UK, this chance was 41 % for dabigatran. The quality of care, reflected in time in therapeutic range, had an important influence on the ICER.

CONCLUSIONS

Apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran are cost-effective alternatives to coumarin derivatives in the UK, while in the Netherlands, only apixaban and dabigatran could be considered cost effective. The cost effectiveness of the new oral anticoagulants is largely dependent on the setting and quality of local anticoagulant care facilities.

New oral anticoagulants in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a review of pharmacokinetics, safety, efficacy, quality of life, and cost effectiveness

Atrial fibrillation (AF) continues to be a leading cause of cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality resulting from cardioembolic stroke. Oral anticoagulation therapy has been shown to decrease the incidence of cardioembolic stroke in patients with AF by more than 50%. Appropriate use of anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists requires precise adherence and monitoring. A number of factors that potentially induce patients’ dissatisfaction reduce quality of patient life. New direct oral anticoagulants, such as the direct factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and the thrombin inhibitor dabigatran, were developed to overcome the limitations of the conventional anticoagulant drugs. However, models to optimize the benefit of therapy and to ensure that therapy can be safely continued are missing for the new oral anticoagulants. This review will briefly describe the new oral anticoagulants dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban with focus on their use for prevention of embolic events in AF. Moreover, it will discuss the safety, efficacy, cost data, and benefit for patients’ quality of life and adherence.