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

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.

Budget and health impact of switching eligible patients with atrial fibrillation to lower- dose dabigatran

Objectives: To assess the comparative budget and health impact of lower-dose dabigatran versus reduced doses of apixaban and rivaroxaban in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients eligible for a lower-/reduced-dose due to individual patient characteristics in the Netherlands. Methods: A budget impact model was developed in accordance with ISPOR guidelines. A 3-year-time horizon was considered, and analyses were conducted from a Dutch healthcare payer's perspective. The model applies published data to local AF-epidemiology, allowing calculations to estimate clinical events (strokes and haemorrhages) and costs. The analyses were based on real-world outcomes from patients with AF receiving a first direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prescription for low-dose dabigatran (110 mg) and a reduced dose of apixaban (2.5 mg) or rivaroxaban (15 mg). Two situations of switching treatments from one to another DOAC were modelled: switching from apixaban to dabigatran and from rivaroxaban to dabigatran. Base case results were given as savings per 100 patient-year, per total Dutch population, and events avoided. A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the uncertainty around epidemiological and event costs input data. Scenario analyses were performed to estimate the effect of different market shares and potential price reductions due to future patent expiry for the total real-world population from the Netherlands. Results: The 3-years outcomes of switching patients eligible for a lower-/reduced-dose due to individual patient characteristics from apixaban or rivaroxaban to dabigatran resulted in cost savings estimated at €157 or €72 thousand per 100 patient-years, respectively, or €146 million per total Dutch population. Looking into the clinical events, dabigatran reflected the lowest number of mortalities, ischemic strokes, major bleeding, non-major bleeding, and haemorrhagic stroke compared to apixaban and rivaroxaban. The sensitivity analysis consistently reflected cost savings, with the ischeamic stroke events having the biggest impact. Accounting for the Dutch situation, both scenarios showed total savings ranging from €45 to €229 million over 3 years. Conclusions: Switching eligible AF-patients from reduced-dose apixaban or rivaroxaban to lower-dose dabigatran has the potential to reduce healthcare payer's budget expenditures and provide health gains. Cost savings can potentially be further enhanced by market share adjustments and further price reductions.

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.