Apixaban, Dabigatran, and Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

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.

Cost Effectiveness of Strategies to Manage Atrial Fibrillation in Middle- and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains the most common form of cardiac arrhythmia. Management of AF aims to reduce the risk of stroke, heart failure and premature mortality via rate or rhythm control. This study aimed to review the literature on the cost effectiveness of treatment strategies to manage AF among adults living in low-, middle- and high-income countries.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (OvidSp), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit and Google Scholar for relevant studies between September 2022 and November 2022. The search strategy involved medical subject headings or related text words. Data management and selection was performed using EndNote library. The titles and abstracts were screened followed by eligibility assessment of full texts. Selection, assessment of the risk of bias within the studies, and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. The cost-effectiveness results were synthesised narratively. The analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 365. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for each study was adjusted to 2021 USD values.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included in the analysis after selection and risk of bias assessment. In high-income countries, apixaban was predominantly cost effective for stroke prevention in patients at low and moderate risk of stroke, while left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) was cost effective in patients at high risk of stroke. Propranolol was the cost-effective choice for rate control, while catheter ablation and the convergent procedure were cost-effective strategies in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively. Among the anti-arrhythmic drugs, sotalol was the cost-effective strategy for rhythm control. In middle-income countries, apixaban was the cost-effective choice for stroke prevention in patients at low and moderate risk of stroke while high-dose edoxaban was cost effective in patients at high risk of stroke. Radiofrequency catheter ablation was the cost-effective option in rhythm control. No data were available for low-income countries.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has shown that there are several cost-effective strategies to manage AF in different resource settings. However, the decision to use any strategy should be guided by objective clinical and economic evidence supported by sound clinical judgement.

REGISTRATION

CRD42022360590.

Cost-Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation in Hong Kong

OBJECTIVES

The emergence of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has revolutionized the prevention of stroke related to nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Several DOACs are available on the market, while the cost-effectiveness comparison among DOACs and vitamin K antagonist (warfarin) in NVAF management in Hong Kong market remains scarce. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of DOACs and warfarin from a Hong Kong public institutional perspective to inform formulary listing decisions.

METHODS

A previously developed Markov model was adapted to simulate the lifetime disease progression of a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients. Net monetary costs, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were computed for the following competing alternatives: warfarin, apixaban (5 mg twice daily), dabigatran (110 mg or 150 mg twice daily), and rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address study uncertainties.

RESULTS

In base-case results, all DOACs were associated with greater QALYs improvements and lower costs than warfarin. Rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran 150 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, and warfarin resulted in net costs US dollar (USD) 8088, USD 8240, USD 8566, USD 8653, and USD 16 363 and net QALY 5.87, 6.017, 6.022, 5.98, and 5.829, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities of warfarin, rivaroxaban 20 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, and apixaban 5 mg being cost-effective of 2000 iterations were 0%, 0%, 29.4%, 33.2%, and 37.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Apixaban was the most cost-effective option compared with other DOACs and warfarin in the management of NVAF; this conclusion is consistent under all the tested uncertainty scenarios.

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.

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 Utility Analysis of Dupilumab Versus Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps

OBJECTIVE

Both endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) and biologic therapies have shown effectiveness for medically-refractory chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) without severe asthma. The objective was to evaluate cost-effectiveness of dupilumab versus ESS for patients with CRSwNP.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort-style Markov decision-tree economic model with a 36-year time horizon.

METHODS

A cohort of 197 CRSwNP patients who underwent ESS were compared with a matched cohort of 293 CRSwNP patients from the SINUS-24 and SINUS-52 Phase 3 studies who underwent treatment with dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks. Utility scores were calculated from the SNOT-22 instrument in both cohorts. Decision-tree analysis and a 10-state Markov model utilized published event probabilities and primary data to calculate long-term costs and utility. The primary outcome measure was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), which is expressed as an Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The ESS strategy cost $50,436.99 and produced 9.80 QALYs. The dupilumab treatment strategy cost $536,420.22 and produced 8.95 QALYs. Because dupilumab treatment was more costly and less effective than the ESS strategy, it is dominated by ESS in the base case. One-way sensitivity analyses showed ESS to be cost-effective versus dupilumab regardless of the frequency of revision surgery and at any yearly cost of dupilumab above $855.

CONCLUSIONS

The ESS treatment strategy is more cost effective than dupilumab for upfront treatment of CRSwNP. More studies are needed to isolate potential phenotypes or endotypes that will benefit most from dupilumab in a cost-effective manner.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2C Laryngoscope, 131:E26-E33, 2021.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the Japanese healthcare setting

Aims: This article aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban in comparison to warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), from a public healthcare payer's perspective.Materials and methods: Baseline event risks were obtained from the J-ROCKET AF trial and the treatment effect data were taken from a network meta-analysis. The other model inputs were extracted from the literature and official Japanese sources. The outcomes included the number of ischaemic strokes, myocardial infarctions, systemic embolisms and bleedings avoided, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The scenario analysis considered treatment effect data from the same network meta-analysis.Results: In comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban was estimated to avoid 0.284 ischaemic strokes per patient, to increase the number of QALYs by 0.535 per patient and to decrease the total costs by ¥118,892 (€1,011.11) per patient (1 JPY = 0.00850638 EUR; XE.com, 7 October 2019). Consequently, rivaroxaban treatment was found to be dominant compared to warfarin. In the scenario analysis, the ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was ¥2,873,499 (€24,446.42) per QALY.Limitations: The various sources of data used resulted in the heterogeneity of the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Although, rivaroxaban was cost-effective in the majority of cases.Conclusion: Rivaroxaban is cost-effective against warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with NVAF, giving the payer WTP of 5,000,000 JPY.

New oral anti-coagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in high thromboembolic risk patients

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulant therapy (VKA) is nowadays the mainstay of treatment in primary and secondary stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. Given the limited risk-benefit ratio of vitamin K antagonists, pharmacological research has been directed towards the development of products that could overcome these limits, new oral anticoagulants were recently introduced: dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban.

AIM

Scope of the present study was to examine patterns of use, effectiveness, safety and mean annual cost per patient of anticoagulant treatment for non-valvular AF in real clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study, by using administrative databases (drugs, hospitalizations, clinical visits, lab tests, population registry), was conducted in the Local Health Unit (LHU) of Treviso, Italy, from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016.

RESULTS

5597 subjects were selected, 2171 of which satisfied all inclusion criteria. In particular 1355 patients were treated with VKA, 577 patients were treated with NOAC, and 239 patients were treated initially with VKA and subsequently switched to NOAC (switch group). NOAC treatment showed to be superior to VKA and this superiority was statistically significant on both end-points: patients in the NOAC group reported less cardiovascular events (9,9%) and less bleeding episodes (5,5%) versus VKA patients (14,6% and 11,4%; p<,0001 and p = 0,0049, respectively). The mean cost per patient per year was respectively € 1323,9 for patients treated with NOAC versus € 1003,3 for patients treated with VKA. Cost difference appears to be largely driven by drug cost (€ 767,9 for NOAC versus € 17,7 for VKA patients) and by specialist visits and laboratory tests (€ 318,4 for NOAC versus € 733,4 for VKA patients).

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective real-world study treatment with NOAC showed to be associated with significant reductions of CV events and bleeding events compared to VKA use, albeit at a higher NHS' direct cost per patient/year, mainly due to higher drug therapy cost.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Thai Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been recommended as preferred options for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) versus warfarin by guidelines worldwide.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of each NOAC in a Thai health care environment, a country with upper middle-income economies based on the World Bank's classification.

METHOD

A lifetime Markov model was created from a Thai societal perspective. The model consisted of 19 health states separated into two cycles: event cycle and consequence cycle. The consequences of AF included in the model were ischaemic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, extracranial haemorrhage, and myocardial infarction. All NOACs available in Thailand (dabigatran 150 mg and 110 mg twice daily; rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily; apixaban 5 mg twice daily; edoxaban 60 mg and 30 mg once daily) were assessed using warfarin with an international normalised ratio of 2-3 as the reference. Inputs were a combination of published literature and local data when available. A willingness-to-pay of 160,000 Thai baht (THB)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used as the threshold of being cost-effective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated.

RESULTS

All NOACs were not cost-effective strategies for the Thai AF population. The ranking of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from lowest to highest were apixaban 5 mg twice daily (THB 692,136 or US$21,862) followed by edoxaban 60 mg once daily (THB 911,772 or US$28,799), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (THB 913,749 or US$28,861), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (THB 1,102,106 or US$34,811), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (THB 1,195,347 or US$37,756), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (THB 1,347,650 or US$42,566). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that apixaban had the highest potential to be a cost-effective strategy versus other NOACs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicated that all NOACs were not cost-effective in the Thai AF population. Of the NOACs, apixaban may be the most likely to be cost-effective. These data may be useful for policymakers to perform a comprehensive evaluation of these agents for formulary decision and pricing negotiation.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Thai Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation and a High Risk of Bleeding

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of direct-acting oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in Thai patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and a HAS-BLED score of 3.

METHODS

Total costs (US$) in 2017 and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated over 20 years using a Markov model. A base-case analysis was conducted under a societal perspective, which included direct healthcare, non-healthcare and indirect costs in Thailand. Clinical events for warfarin and utilities were obtained from Thai patients whenever possible. The efficacy of direct-acting oral anticoagulants was derived from trial-based East Asian subgroups and adjusted for time in the target international normalized ratio range of warfarin.

RESULTS

In the base case, use of apixaban instead of warfarin incurred an additional cost of US$20,763 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Substituting apixaban with rivaroxaban and rivaroxaban with high-dose edoxaban would incur an additional cost per quality-adjusted life-year by US$507 and US$434, respectively. Compared with warfarin, high-dose edoxaban had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$9704/quality-adjusted life-year, followed by high-dose dabigatran (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio US$11,155/quality-adjusted life-year). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on a payer perspective were similar. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below Thailand's cost-effectiveness threshold when high-dose dabigatran and edoxaban prices were reduced by 50%. Changes in key parameters had a minimal impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

For both societal and payer perspectives, high-dose edoxaban with a price below the country cost-effectiveness threshold should be the first anticoagulant option for Thai patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and a high risk of bleeding.

Health Care Costs and Utilization of Dabigatran Compared With Warfarin for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Population Study

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether the use of new oral anticoagulants, compared with warfarin, is economically beneficial in Asian countries.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to compare the health care costs and utilization between dabigatran and warfarin in a real-world nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) population.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Data were obtained from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database, and patients with an NVAF diagnosis between June 1, 2012, and May 31, 2014, were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code of 427.31. The patients in the dabigatran cohort were matched 1:2 to those in the warfarin cohort by sex, age, residential region, and a propensity score that incorporated a major bleeding history, CHADS2 score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. The all-cause health care utilization and associated costs of the 2 treatment groups were compared at 3 and 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 1149 patients taking dabigatran were identified and matched with 2298 warfarin users. During the 3-month observation period, the likelihood of having at least 1 hospitalization among dabigatran users was significantly lower than that of warfarin users (odds ratio=0.78; P=0.001). Patients in the dabigatran group incurred lower mean emergency department costs ($2383.1 vs. $3033.6), mean ischemic stroke-related hospitalization costs ($8869.5 vs. $13,990.5), and mean all-cause hospitalization costs ($32,402.2 vs. $50,669.9) at 3 months. However, both the mean and median outpatient costs of warfarin users were consistently lower than those of dabigatran users ($17,161.2 vs. $24,931.4 and $10,509.0 vs. $20,671.5, respectively). Similar trends were observed at 12 months, except that the 2 groups had comparable total health care costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of dabigatran is associated with lower emergency department and all-cause hospitalization costs but greater outpatient costs in a real-world, NVAF patient population compared with warfarin.

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.

Uncertainty on the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban in premenopausal women with atrial fibrillation: empirical evidence needed

Background

Novel anticoagulations (NOACs) are increasingly prescribed for the prevention of stroke in premenopausal women with atrial fibrillation. Small studies suggest NOACs are associated with a higher risk of abnormal uterine bleeds than vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Because there is no direct empirical evidence on the benefit/risk profile of rivaroxaban compared to VKAs in this subgroup, we synthesize available indirect evidence, estimate decision uncertainty on the treatments, and assess whether further research in premenopausal women is warranted.

Methods

A Markov model with annual cycles and a lifetime horizon was developed comparing rivaroxaban (the most frequently prescribed NOAC in this population) and VKAs. Clinical event rates, associated quality adjusted life years, and health care costs were obtained from different sources and adjusted for gender, age, and history of stroke. A Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations was then performed for a hypothetical cohort of premenopausal women, estimated to be reflective of the population of premenopausal women with AF in The Netherlands.

Results

In the simulation, rivaroxaban is the better treatment option for the prevention of ischemic strokes in premenopausal women in 61% of the iterations. Similarly, this is 98% for intracranial hemorrhages, 24% for major abnormal uterine bleeds, 1% for minor abnormal uterine bleeds, 9% for other major extracranial hemorrhages, and 23% for other minor extracranial hemorrhages. There is a 78% chance that rivaroxaban offers the most quality-adjusted life years. The expected value of perfect information in The Netherlands equals 122 quality-adjusted life years and 22 million Euros.

Conclusions

There is a 22% risk that rivaroxaban offers a worse rather than a better benefit/risk profile than vitamin K antagonists in premenopausal women. Although rivaroxaban is preferred over VKAs in this population, further research is warranted, and should preferably take the shape of an internationally coordinated registry study including other NOACs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-017-0692-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The impact of asthma on the cost effectiveness of surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

BACKGROUND

The objective of this work was to evaluate the impact of asthma on the cost-effectiveness profile of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) compared to medical therapy for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP).

METHODS

The study design consisted of a cohort-style Markov decision-tree cost utility analysis with a 35-year time horizon. Matched cohorts of CRSwNP patients with (n = 95) and without (n = 95) asthma who underwent ESS were compared with cohorts of patients from the national Medical Expenditures Survey Panel (MEPS) database who underwent medical management for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Baseline, 1-year, and 2-year health utility values were calculated from responses to the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) instrument in both cohorts. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each cohort.

RESULTS

The reference cases for CRSwNP patients with and without asthma yielded ICERs for ESS vs medical therapy alone of $12,066 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $7,369 per QALY, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, the ICER scatter plots demonstrated 86% and 99% certainty that the ESS strategy was the most cost-effective option for CRSwNP patients with and without asthma, respectively. ESS was not significantly more cost effective for CRSwNP patients without asthma (p = 0.494).

CONCLUSION

ESS remains cost effective compared to medical therapy for patients both with and without asthma. While the comorbidity of asthma results in an inferior ICER result, it does not result in a statistically significant negative impact on the overall cost effectiveness of ESS.

The value of frontal sinusotomy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps-A cost utility analysis

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

The number of surgical procedures performed for frontal sinusitis and the associated costs have increased dramatically over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic frontal sinusotomy (EFS) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP).

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort-style Markov decision-tree economic model with a 36-year time horizon.

METHODS

Matched cohorts of CRSwNP patients who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) with (n = 139) and without (n = 49) EFS were compared to each other and to patients (n = 139) from the Medical Expenditures Survey Panel database who underwent medical management for chronic rhinosinusitis. Multi-year health utility values were calculated from responses to the EuroQol 5-Dimension instrument. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Decision analysis showed that ESS without EFS proved more cost-effective than ESS with EFS or medical management. ESS without EFS compared to medical management yielded an ICER of $9,004/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). ESS with EFS compared to ESS without EFS yielded an ICER of $62,310/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY, ESS without EFS was more cost-effective than ESS with EFS with 52.1% certainty. These results were robust to one-way analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

ESS remains a cost-effective intervention compared to medical therapy alone for patients with CRSwNP. In this study, the addition of frontal sinusotomy during ESS for patients with CRSwNP was not found to be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY, but may be cost effective at a higher threshold of $100,000/QALY.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2c. Laryngoscope, 128:43-51, 2018.

Bleeding outcomes associated with rivaroxaban and dabigatran in patients treated for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Warfarin is commonly used as a secondary prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, limitations have been observed even with the use of this medication. Recently, several newer direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been approved for use by the food and drug administrations. Unfortunately, these newer drugs have seldom been compared directly with each other. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the bleeding events associated with rivaroxaban and dabigatran in patients treated for non-valvular AF.

Methods

EMBASE, Medline (National Library of Medicine) and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were searched for studies comparing rivaroxaban with dabigatran using the terms ‘rivaroxaban, dabigatran and atrial fibrillation’. Primary endpoints were: any bleeding outcomes, intracranial bleeding and gastro-intestinal (GI) bleeding. Secondary outcomes included stroke/systemic embolism (SE)/transient ischemic attack (TIA), venous thromboembolism and mortality. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The pooled analyses were carried out with RevMan 5.3 software. All the authors had full access to the data and approved the manuscript as written.

Results

A total number of 4895 patients were included. This analysis showed that rivaroxaban was not associated with a significantly higher bleeding event when compared to dabigatran (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.95–1.72; P = 0.11). GI bleeding was similarly manifested between these two DOACs (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.43–2.25; P = 0.97). Even if intracranial bleeding was higher with the use of rivaroxaban, (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 0.51–9.25; P = 0.29), the result was not statistically significant. Moreover, stroke/SE/TIA and venous thromboembolism were also not significantly different (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.53–1.23; P = 0.32) and (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 0.73–5.82; P = 0.17) respectively. However, even if mortality favored dabigatran (OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 0.99–2.06; P = 0.06), this result only approached statistical significance.

Conclusion

Head to head comparison showed that rivaroxaban was not associated with significantly higher bleeding events compared to dabigatran. Intracranial bleeding, GI bleeding, stroke/SE/TIA, venous thromboembolism and mortality were also not significantly different between these two DOACs. However, due to the limited number of patients analyzed, and which were mainly obtained from observational studies, this hypothesis might only be confirmed in future randomized trials. Furthermore, the CHADS₂-VASC and HAS-BLED score which might play an important role in predicting bleeding risks should also not be ignored.

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.

The fate of medications evaluated for ischemic stroke pharmacotherapy over the period 1995-2015

Stroke is a brain damage caused by a loss of blood supply to a portion of the brain, which requires prompt and effective treatment. The current pharmacotherapy for ischemic stroke primarily relies on thrombolysis using recombinant tissue plasminogen activators (rt-PAs) to breakdown blood clots. Neuroprotective agents that inhibit excitatory neurotransmitters are also used to treat ischemic stroke but have failed to translate into clinical benefits. This poses a major challenge in biomedical research to understand what causes the progressive brain cell death after stroke and how to develop an effective pharmacotherapy for stroke. This brief review analyzes the fate of about 430 potentially useful stroke medications over the period 1995–2015 and describes in detail those that successfully reached the market. Hopefully, the information from this analysis will shed light on how future stroke research can improve stroke drug discovery.

Cost utility analysis of endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyposis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) compared to medical therapy for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with and without nasal polyposis (NP).

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort-style Markov decision-tree economic model with a 36-year time horizon.

METHODS

Two cohorts of 229 CRS patients with and without NP who underwent ESS were compared with a matched cohort of 229 CRS patients from the Medical Expenditures Survey Panel database (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD) who underwent medical management. Utility scores were calculated from sequential patient responses to the EuroQol five-dimensions questionnaire. Decision-tree analysis and a 10-state Markov model utilized published event probabilities and primary data to calculate long-term costs and utility. The primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Thorough sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The reference case for CRS with NP yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ESS versus medical therapy of $5,687.41/QALY. The reference case for CRS without NP yielded an ICER of $5,405.44/QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve in both cases demonstrated 95% certainty that the ESS strategy was the most cost-effective option at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,000/QALY or higher. These results were robust to one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of ESS compared to medical therapy alone for the management of CRS patients both with and without NP. The presence of nasal polyps was not found to affect the overall cost-effectiveness of ESS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2C. Laryngoscope, 127:29-37, 2017.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Novel Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation

Recently, novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been approved for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Although these agents overcome some disadvantages of warfarin, they are associated with increased costs. In this review, we will provide an overview of the cost-effectiveness of NOACs for stroke prevention in AF. Our comments and conclusions are limited to studies directly comparing all available NOACs within the same framework. The available cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that NOACs are cost-effective compared to warfarin, with apixaban likely being most favorable. However, significant limitations in these models are present and should be appreciated when interpreting their results.

Edoxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Edoxaban, an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor, has been found non-inferior to warfarin for preventing stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), with a lower rate of intracranial bleeding. The aim of our investigation was to assess the cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus warfarin from the perspective of the Italian health-care system. A Markov decision model was used to evaluate lifetime cost and quality-adjusted life expectancy of NVAF patients treated with warfarin or edoxaban. Transition probabilities were obtained from the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, cost estimates were based on Italian prices and tariffs, utilities were obtained from the literature. One-way and second-order sensitivity analyses were performed. In the base case, lifetime costs were €18,658 for edoxaban and €14,060 for warfarin. Discounted quality-adjusted survival was 9.022 years for edoxaban and 8.425 years for warfarin, leading to an incremental cost-utility ratio of €7,713 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Results were sensitive to time horizon, time in therapeutic range of warfarin and to the relative impact of warfarin versus edoxaban therapy onto quality of life. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed edoxaban to be cost-effective versus warfarin in 92.3 % of the simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000 per QALY. In conclusion, edoxaban proved to be a cost-effective alternative to warfarin in patients with moderate-to-high-risk NVAF.

Novel oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent arrhythmia in clinical practice, reaching 2% of the people in the world and is associated with systemic embolism. Thus, the use of anticoagulants is indicated if CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2 or in patients with previous transient ischemic attack or stroke. For decades, warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist, was the only choice for chronic oral anticoagulation. Recently, novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been introduced, offering similar (or better) effectiveness, safety, and convenience to the vitamin K antagonists. Dabigatran was the first NOAC approved and is a direct thrombin inhibitor. Rivaroxaban and apixaban are factor Xa inhibitors. They display rapid onset of action, more predictable of pharmacological profile, less interactions with other drugs, lack of significant effects in the diet, and less risk of intracranial hemorrhage than warfarin. Despite that dose adjustment is necessary for patients with chronic kidney disease or according to body weight, these new drugs do not require regular monitoring. There are recommendations for the start and follow-up therapy with NOACs, planning for cardioversion, ablation and surgical interventions and the management of bleeding. This article is a review of the major studies of the NOACs. The clinical use of these drugs in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation is presented.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and atrial fibrillation guidelines in practice: barriers to and strategies for optimal implementation

Stroke is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an independent risk factor for stroke, increasing the risk five-fold. Strokes in patients with AF are more likely than other embolic strokes to be fatal or cause severe disability and are associated with higher healthcare costs, but they are also preventable. Current guidelines recommend that all patients with AF who are at risk of stroke should receive anticoagulation. However, despite this guidance, registry data indicate that anticoagulation is still widely underused. With a focus on the 2012 update of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of AF, the Action for Stroke Prevention alliance writing group have identified key reasons for the suboptimal implementation of the guidelines at a global, regional, and local level, with an emphasis on access restrictions to guideline-recommended therapies. Following identification of these barriers, the group has developed an expert consensus on strategies to augment the implementation of current guidelines, including practical, educational, and access-related measures. The potential impact of healthcare quality measures for stroke prevention on guideline implementation is also explored. By providing practical guidance on how to improve implementation of the ESC guidelines, or region-specific modifications of these guidelines, the aim is to reduce the potentially devastating impact that stroke can have on patients, their families and their carers.

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 rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in German patients with atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of the novel fixed-dose anticoagulant rivaroxaban compared with the current standard of care, warfarin, for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to model the costs and health outcomes of both treatments, potential adverse events, and resulting health states over 35 years. Analyses were based on a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with non-valvular AF at moderate to high risk of stroke. The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over the lifetime, and was assessed from the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) perspective. Costs and utility data were drawn from public data and the literature, while event probabilities were derived from both the literature and rivaroxaban's pivotal ROCKET AF trial.

RESULTS

Stroke prophylaxis with rivaroxaban offers health improvements over warfarin treatment at additional cost. From the SHI perspective, at baseline the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of rivaroxaban was <euro>15,207 per QALY gained in 2014. The results were robust to changes in the majority of variables; however, they were sensitive to the price of rivaroxaban, the hazard ratios for stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, the time horizon, and the discount rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that the substantially higher medication costs of rivaroxaban were offset by mitigating the shortcomings of warfarin, most notably frequent dose regulation and bleeding risk. Future health economic studies on novel oral anticoagulants should evaluate the cost effectiveness for secondary stroke prevention and, as clinical data from direct head-to-head comparisons become available, new anticoagulation therapies should be compared against each other.

Effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on health care costs among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients: observations from rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users

Introduction

New target-specific oral anticoagulants may have benefits, such as shorter hospital length of stay, compared to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study aimed to assess, among patients with NVAF, the effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on health care costs in a cohort of rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users.

Methods

Health care claims from the Humana database from 5/2011 to 12/2012 were analyzed. Adult patients newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥2 atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnoses (The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification: 427.31) and without valvular AF were identified. Based on propensity score methods, warfarin patients were matched 1:1 to rivaroxaban patients. Patients were observed up to end of data, end of insurance coverage, death, a switch to another anticoagulant, or treatment nonpersistence. Health care costs [hospitalization, emergency room (ER), outpatient, and pharmacy costs] were evaluated using Lin’s method.

Results

Matches were found for all rivaroxaban patients, and characteristics of the matched groups (n = 2253 per group) were well balanced. Estimated mean all-cause and AF-related hospitalization costs were significantly lower for rivaroxaban versus warfarin patients (all-cause: $5411 vs. $7427, P = 0.047; AF-related: $2872 vs. $4147, P = 0.020). Corresponding estimated mean all-cause outpatient visit costs were also significantly lower, but estimated mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher for rivaroxaban patients ($5316 vs. $2620, P < 0.001). Although estimated mean costs of ER visits were higher for rivaroxaban users compared to those of warfarin users, differences were not statistically significant. Including anticoagulant costs, mean overall total all-cause costs were comparable for rivaroxaban versus warfarin users due to cost offset from a reduction in the number and length of hospitalizations and number of outpatient visits ($17,590 vs. $18,676, P = 0.542).

Conclusion

Despite higher anticoagulant cost, mean overall total all-cause and AF-related cost remains comparable for patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin due to the cost offset from reduced health care resource utilization.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0189-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Practical issues in the management of novel oral anticoagulants-cardioversion and ablation

Recent research and publication of various landmark trials have led to the approval and subsequent use of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in clinical practice. The use of these newer agents for anticoagulation offers several benefits such as greater specificity, relatively rapid onset and offset of action and a predictable pharmacological profile as compared to warfarin. With the increasing use of these agents, several key issues ranging from appropriate selection to management of complications and considerations for concurrent procedures (cardioversion and catheter ablation) have also emerged. The timing of interruption of anticoagulants prior to catheter ablation and re-initiation after the procedure to minimize the peri-procedural thromboembolism risk without increasing the bleeding risk is of key relevance in electrophysiology practice. The use of NOACs in patients undergoing catheter ablation and cardioversion also requires special considerations based on the pharmacological properties of the individual agent and the presence of comorbidities such as renal and or hepatic impairment. In this review we aim to discuss the practical considerations with the use of NOACs in the setting of cardioversion and catheter ablation based on the currently available data.

Graphical representation of life paths to better convey results of decision models to patients

The inclusion of patients' perspectives in clinical practice has become an important matter for health professionals, in view of the increasing attention to patient-centered care. In this regard, this report illustrates a method for developing a visual aid that supports the physician in the process of informing patients about a critical decisional problem. In particular, we focused on interpretation of the results of decision trees embedding Markov models implemented with the commercial tool TreeAge Pro. Starting from patient-level simulations and exploiting some advanced functionalities of TreeAge Pro, we combined results to produce a novel graphical output that represents the distributions of outcomes over the lifetime for the different decision options, thus becoming a more informative decision support in a context of shared decision making. The training example used to illustrate the method is a decision tree for thromboembolism risk prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

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.