A comparative analysis of models used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus warfarin for the prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation

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.

[GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines]

Clinicians do not have the time or resources to consider the underlying evidence for the myriad decisions they must make each day and, as a consequence, rely on recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. Guideline panels should consider all the relevant factors (criteria) that influence a decision or recommendation in a structured, explicit, and transparent way and provide clinicians with clear and actionable recommendations. In this article, we will describe the Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for clinical practice recommendations. The general structure of the EtD framework for clinical recommendations is similar to EtD frameworks for other types of recommendations and decisions, and includes formulation of the question, an assessment of the different criteria, and conclusions. Clinical recommendations require considering criteria differently, depending on whether an individual patient or a population perspective is taken. For example, from an individual patient's perspective, out-of-pocket costs are an important consideration, whereas, from a population perspective, resource use (not only out-of-pocket costs) and cost effectiveness are important. From a population perspective, equity, acceptability, and feasibility are also important considerations, whereas the importance of these criteria is often limited from an individual patient perspective. Specific subgroups for which different recommendations may be required should be clearly identified and considered in relation to each criterion because judgments might vary across subgroups. This article is a translation of the original article published in the British Medical Journal. The EtD frameworks are currently used in the Clinical Practice Guideline Programme of the Spanish National Health System, co-ordinated by GuíaSalud.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device With Delivery System: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is a common cardiac arrhythmia, and 15% to 20% of those who have experienced stroke have atrial fibrillation. Treatment options to prevent stroke in people with atrial fibrillation include pharmacological agents such as novel oral anticoagulants or nonpharmacological devices such as the left atrial appendage closure device with delivery system (LAAC device). The objectives of this health technology assessment were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the LAAC device versus novel oral anticoagulants in patients without contraindications to oral anticoagulants and versus antiplatelet agents in patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We also conducted an economic literature review, economic evaluation, and budget impact analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the LAAC device compared with novel oral anticoagulants and oral antiplatelet agents (e.g., aspirin). We also spoke with patients to better understand their preferences, perspectives, and values.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled studies met the inclusion criteria for indirect comparison. Five studies assessed the effectiveness of novel oral anticoagulants versus warfarin, and two studies compared the LAAC device with warfarin. No studies were identified that compared the LAAC device with aspirin in patients in whom oral anticoagulants were contraindicated. Using the random effects model, we found that the LAAC device was comparable to novel oral anticoagulants in reducing stroke (odds ratio [OR] 0.85; credible interval [Cr.I] 0.63-1.05). Similarly, the reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality was comparable between the LAAC device and novel oral anticoagulants (OR 0.71; Cr.I 0.49-1.22). The LAAC device was found to be superior to novel oral anticoagulants in preventing hemorrhagic stroke (OR 0.45; Cr.I 0.29-0.79), whereas novel oral anticoagulants were found to be superior to the LAAC device in preventing ischemic stroke (OR 0.67; Cr.I 0.24-1.64). The body of clinical evidence was found to be of moderate quality as assed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. Results from the economic evaluation indicate that the LAAC device is cost-effective compared with aspirin in patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants. In patients without contraindications to oral anticoagulants, we found that the LAAC device is not cost-effective compared with novel oral anticoagulants. Publicly funding the LAAC device in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with contraindications to oral anticoagulants could result in additional funding of $1.1 million to $7.7 million over the first five years. Patients interviewed reported on the impact of living with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and were supportive of the LAAC device as a treatment option.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests that the LAAC device is as effective as novel oral anticoagulants in preventing stroke in people with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. However, our results indicate that the LAAC device is cost-effective only in patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants. People with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with whom we spoke reported positive support for the LAAC device.

A New Generation of Antiplatelet, and Anticoagulant Medication and the Implications for the Dental Surgeon

The management of dental patients taking either antiplatelet medication, anticoagulant medication or both has been well established in the previous literature. Recently, new generations of drugs have emerged which are becoming increasingly common, including direct thrombin inhibitors, factor X inhibitors and a new class of oral thienopyridines. The implications of these drugs for the dental surgeon are not yet fully known. Awareness remains low and there is very little information available within the literature on safe use during surgery. This review paper aims to provide some guidance for dental practitioners performing invasive procedures. CPD/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A new generation of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs have serious implications for patients undergoing surgery and their use is increasing.

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.

Quality indicators as a tool in improving the introduction of new medicines

Quality indicators are increasingly used as a tool to achieve safe and quality clinical care, cost-effective therapy, for professional learning, remuneration, accreditation and financial incentives. A substantial number focus on drug therapy but few address the introduction of new medicines even though this is a burning issue. The objective was to describe the issues and challenges in designing and implementing a transparent indicator framework and evaluation protocol for the introduction of new medicines and to provide guidance on how to apply quality indicators in the managed entry of new medicines. Quality indicators need to be developed early to assess whether new medicines are introduced appropriately. A number of key factors need to be addressed when developing, applying and evaluating indicators including dimensions of quality, suggested testing protocols, potential data sources, key implementation factors such as intended and unintended consequences, budget impact and cost-effectiveness, assuring the involvement of the medical professions, patients and the public, and reliable and easy-to-use computerized tools for data collection and management. Transparent approaches include the need for any quality indicators developed to handle conflict of interests to enhance their validity and acceptance. The suggested framework and indicator testing protocol may be useful in assessing the applicability of indicators for new medicines and may be adapted to healthcare settings worldwide. The suggestions build on existing literature to create a field testing methodology that can be used to produce country-specific quality indicators for new medicines as well as a cross international approach to facilitate access to new medicines.

Cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants in the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia and the leading cause of stroke, an event with high human and economic burden. Novel oral anticoagulants have been approved in many markets as alternatives to warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with AF - dabigatran etexilate, apixaban and rivaroxaban. Given the high burden of AF, and given that new treatments can more effectively prevent stroke than warfarin, but at higher drug cost, there has been a need for systematic evaluation of the costs and benefits of these new treatments. In this study, we summarize the findings of a systematic literature review on the cost-effectiveness of the new oral anticoagulants. We find that there is substantial heterogeneity between the studies and their numerical findings, despite using a common set of four trials for their clinical inputs. However, there is broad consensus among them that each of the novel oral anticoagulants is cost-effective versus warfarin or aspirin.