Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in UK patients with atrial fibrillation

Employing Real-World Evidence for the Economic Evaluation of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in Thailand

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in comparison with warfarin using data from real practice based on the perspective of the health care system in Thailand.

METHODS

A four-state Markov model encompassing well-controlled atrial fibrillation (AF), stroke and systemic embolism, major bleeding and death was utilised to forecast clinical and economic outcomes. Transitional probabilities, direct medical costs and utilities were derived from the real-world data of the 'COOL-AF Thailand' registry, Thailand's largest nationwide registry spanning 27 hospitals. The cohort comprised AF patients. The primary outcomes assessed were total costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. All costs and outcomes were subject to an annual discount rate of 3.0%. A spectrum of sensitivity analyses was conducted.

RESULTS

The mean age of the cohort was 68.8 ± 10.7 years. The NOACs group incurred a marginally lower total lifetime cost than the warfarin group (247,857 Thai baht [THB] vs 253,654 THB or 7137 USD vs 7304 USD) and experienced gains of 0.045 life years and 0.043 QALYs over the warfarin group. Given the lower cost and higher benefits associated with NOACs, this implies that NOAC treatment is a dominant strategy compared to warfarin for AF patients. At a ceiling ratio of 160,000 THB (4607 USD) per QALY, NOACs presented a 61.2% probability of being cost effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants represent a cost-saving alternative to warfarin in the real clinical practice. However, with a probability of being cost effective below 65%, it suggests some parameter uncertainty regarding their overall cost effectiveness compared to warfarin.

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.

A Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban versus Vitamin K Antagonists for the Treatment of Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism: Lessons from the REMOTEV Registry

Background and objectives: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a health and economic burden with consequent healthcare resource utilization. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as the mainstay option for VTE treatment but few data exist on their cost-effectiveness as compared to the standard therapy (vitamin K antagonists (VKAs)). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared to VKAs in VTE treatment by calculating the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective observational study based on the REMOTEV registry, including patients hospitalized for VTE from 23 October 2013 to 31 July 2015, to evaluate the impact of the anticoagulant treatment (DOACs versus VKAs) on 6-month complications: major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding, VTE recurrence and all-cause death. Rivaroxaban was the only DOAC prescribed in this study. The ICER was calculated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in effectiveness. Results: Among the 373 patients included, 279 were treated with rivaroxaban (63.1 ± 17.9 years old; 49% men) and 94 with VKAs (71.3 ± 16.6 years old; 46% men). The mean cost was EUR 5662 [95% CI 6606; 9060] for rivaroxaban and EUR 7721 [95% CI 5130; 6304] for VKAs, while effectiveness was 0.0586 95% CI [0.0114; 0.126] for DOACs and 0.0638 [95% CI 0.0208; 0.109] for VKAs. The rivaroxaban treatment strategy was dominant with costs per patient EUR 2059 lower [95% CI -3582; -817] and a higher effectiveness of 0.00527 [95% CI -0.0606; 0.0761] compared to VKAs. Conclusions: This study provides real-world evidence that rivaroxaban is not only an efficient and safe alternative to VKAs for eligible VTE patients, but also cost-saving.

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.

Dabigatran in cardiovascular disease management: A comprehensive review

Dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor, has robust data for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation, and the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after knee and hip replacement. Recent studies have evaluated dabigatran to determine its safety and efficacy in such conditions as VTE in malignancy, coronary artery disease, mechanical and bioprosthetic valves, and antiphospholipid syndrome. This article provides a comprehensive review on the role of dabigatran in various cardiovascular diseases.

Cost-Effectiveness of Apixaban versus Other Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in the Prevention of Thromboembolic Complications Among Finnish Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation

Purpose

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use for the prevention of thromboembolic complications in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) has increased steadily in Finland. DOACs have been shown to be cost-effective in comparison to warfarin, but published evidence of relative cost-effectiveness between DOACs is still scarce and mostly based on indirect comparisons of clinical trial evidence. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of apixaban to dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin in a Finnish setting using real-life evidence where available.

Patients and Methods

A lifetime Markov simulation model used previously in a published Finnish assessment comparing apixaban and warfarin was modified and updated with the relative effectiveness and safety data available from the real-world NAXOS-study and representative Finnish input data for patient characteristics, event risks, mortality, resource use, costs, and quality of life. Apixaban’s cost-effectiveness was assessed from health care payer perspective (using 3% per year discount rate) based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained), probability of cost-effectiveness (at willingness-to-pay [WTP] of 35,000 euros/QALY), and net monetary benefit (NMB).

Results

Apixaban increased the average modelled quality-adjusted life-expectancy and reduced the average total health care costs of AF patients when compared to warfarin (+0.14 QALYs, −3691 euros), dabigatran (+0.11 QALYs, −404 euros), and rivaroxaban (+0.03 QALYs, −43 euros). The resulting NMB of apixaban versus warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban was 8723, 4168, and 1129 euros, respectively. The respective probabilities of apixaban being cost-effective against each comparator were 100%, 92.7%, and 64.0%.

Conclusion

In this modelling study, apixaban dominated other anticoagulants in the Finnish real-life setting.

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.

Directly Acting Oral Anticoagulants for the Prevention of Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation in England and Wales: Cost-Effectiveness Model and Value of Information Analysis

Objectives. Determine the optimal, licensed, first-line anticoagulant for prevention of ischemic stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) in England and Wales from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective and estimate value to decision making of further research. Methods. We developed a cost-effectiveness model to compare warfarin (international normalized ratio target range 2-3) with directly acting (or non-vitamin K antagonist) oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, edoxaban 60 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg, over 30 years post treatment initiation. In addition to death, the 17-state Markov model included the events stroke, bleed, myocardial infarction, and intracranial hemorrhage. Input parameters were informed by systematic literature reviews and network meta-analysis. Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) were estimated to provide an upper bound on value of further research. Results. At willingness-to-pay threshold £20,000, all DOACs have positive expected incremental net benefit compared to warfarin, suggesting they are likely cost-effective. Apixaban has highest expected incremental net benefit (£7533), followed by dabigatran (£6365), rivaroxaban (£5279), and edoxaban (£5212). There was considerable uncertainty as to the optimal DOAC, with the probability apixaban has highest net benefit only 60%. Total estimated population EVPI was £17.94 million (17.85 million, 18.03 million), with relative effect between apixaban versus dabigatran making the largest contribution with EVPPI of £7.95 million (7.66 million, 8.24 million). Conclusions. At willingness-to-pay threshold £20,000, all DOACs have higher expected net benefit than warfarin but there is considerable uncertainty between the DOACs. Apixaban had the highest expected net benefit and greatest probability of having highest net benefit, but there is considerable uncertainty between DOACs. A head-to-head apixaban versus dabigatran trial may be of value.

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.

Hospitalization period and direct medical cost in patients using warfarin or novel oral anti-coagulants after a cerebral embolism

Background Warfarin has been used in Japan for a long time in patients after cerebral embolism to prevent recurrence. Recently, several novel oral anti-coagulants (NOACs) have been approved for use and are gradually replacing warfarin. However, it remains unclear whether warfarin and other NOACs differ from each other with respect to drug costs and length of stay (LOS) during treatment in Japan. Objective To assess differences in LOS and direct medical cost between patients after cerebral embolism treated with warfarin and those treated with NOACs. Setting Thirteen acute care hospitals in Japan. Method For hospitalized patients with cerebral embolisms who were treated with NOACs and/or warfarin between April 2012 and March 2014, we assessed LOS for patients with warfarin and NOAC using log-rank test, and stratified proportional hazard regression. Also, we assess direct medical cost using paired-t test. Main Outcome measure LOS and medical cost after first treatment with warfarin and NOAC. Results The median LOS for NOACs-treated patients was 12.5 days and that for warfarin treated patients was 19.0 days while the corresponding mean medical costs were USD 7151 ± 6228 [JPY 736,546 ± 641,437] and USD 8950 ± 5891 [JPY 921,830 ± 606,765]. The drug cost for NOACs-treated patients was higher but costs for laboratory-test and hospitalization were lower than those for warfarin-treated patients. Conclusions For NOAC-treated patients, LOS was shorter, and medical cost during hospitalization tended to be lower than those for warfarin-treated patients, whereas NOACs prices were higher than warfarin price.

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.

Klinische Studien zu neuen direkten oralen Antikoagulanzien

Um die Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit neuer direkter oraler Antikoagulanzien (DOAK) zu vergleichen, müssten idealerweise eine direkte Gegenüberstellung der Substanzen in klinischen Studien durchgeführt werden. Auf Grund des logistischen und finanziellen Aufwandes wird dies aber in absehbarer Zeit nicht geschehen. Indirekte Vergleiche, auch Netzwerkanalysen (NMA) genannt, lassen sich mit den vorliegenden Studien zwischen den DOAKs vornehmen. In der postoperativen Phase nach Knie- und Hüftgelenkersatz und bei Patienten mit Vorhofflimmern sind derzeit diese Vergleich möglich. Indirekte Vergleiche sind jedoch auch mit Einschränkungen behaftet.

Diese Arbeit gibt eine Übersicht der aktuell vorliegenden NMAs und versucht, deren Ergebnisse mit der Pharmakologie der DOAKs und den methodischen Problemen von NMAs zu beleuchten.

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.

Dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation in Canada

Canadian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in whom anticoagulation is appropriate have two new choices for anticoagulation for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism – dabigatran etexilate (dabigatran) and rivaroxaban. Based on the RE-LY and ROCKET AF trial results, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran (twice daily dosing of 150 mg or 110 mg based on patient age) versus rivaroxaban from a Canadian payer perspective. A formal indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban was performed, using dabigatran clinical event rates from RE-LY for the safety-on-treatment population, adjusted to the ROCKET AF population. A previously described Markov model was modified to simulate anticoagulation treatment using ITC results as inputs. Model outputs included total costs, event rates, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The ITC found when compared to rivaroxaban, dabigatran had a lower risk of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) (relative risk [RR] = 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21 –0.67) and stroke (RR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.45–0.87). Over a lifetime horizon, the model found dabigatran-treated patients experienced fewer ICHs (0.33 dabigatran vs. 0.71 rivaroxaban) and ischaemic strokes (3.40 vs. 3.96) per 100 patient-years, and accrued more QALYs (6.17 vs. 6.01). Dabigatran-treated patients had lower acute care and long-term follow-up costs per patient ($52,314 vs. $53,638) which more than offset differences in drug costs ($7,299 vs. $6,128). In probabilistic analysis, dabigatran had high probability of being the most cost-effective therapy at common thresholds of willingness-to-pay (93% at a $20,000/QALY threshold). This study found dabigatran is economically dominant versus rivaroxaban for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism among Canadian AF patients.

The cost-utility of dabigatran etexilate compared with warfarin in treatment and extended anticoagulation of acute VTE in the UK

The relative efficacy and safety of dabigatran etexilate and warfarin have been evaluated in two head-to-head, phase III, treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) trials, and one extended prophylaxis trial, in patients with high risk of recurrent VTE. Dabigatran etexilate demonstrated similar efficacy to warfarin, and was associated with a reduced risk of major or clinically relevant bleeds. Based on results of these trials, and real-life disease prognosis following discontinuation of anticoagulation treatment, we evaluated the cost-utility of dabigatran etexilate compared with warfarin in six months anticoagulation, and in extended, up to 24 months anticoagulation, in patients with acute VTE, acute deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) or acute, symptomatic, pulmonary embolism (PE). Costs were analysed from the perspective of the National Health Services (NHS) and Public Social Services (PSS) in England and Wales. Outcomes were quantified in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The estimated incremental, lifetime cost/QALY gain following acute, symptomatic VTE (DVT or PE) was £1,252/QALY when dabigatran etexilate or warfarin were administered for up to six months treatment. In treatment of acute, symptomatic PE and in DVT respective ratios were £1,767/QALY and £1,075/QALY. In extended, up to 24 months anticoagulation, dabigatran etexilate projected costs/QALY of £8,242/QALY, when compared with warfarin. Results obtained herein were robust across a number of sensitivity analyses and suggest dabigatran etexilate to be a cost-effective alternative to current standard of care when evaluated in six months treatment and in extended anticoagulation following acute VTE (DVT and/or PE).

Oral anticoagulants for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis

Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation.Design Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. Data sources Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Published randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.Results 23 randomised trials involving 94 656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin.Conclusions The network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD 42013005324.

Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Apixaban Compared to Aspirin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: An Australian Perspective

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of apixaban compared to aspirin in the prevention of thromboembolic events for patients with atrial fibrillation for whom vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy (warfarin) has been considered unsuitable.

METHODS

A previously published Markov model with yearly cycles was updated. Information from the Apixaban Versus Acetylsalicylic acid to prevent Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation (AVERROES) trial in combination with other population data was used to simulate the costs and effects of apixaban compared to aspirin over 10 years. The model comprised five health states. Costs from an Australian healthcare perspective were estimated from published sources for the year 2015. The main outcome of interest was number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) [cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and cost per year of life saved (YoLS)]. Costs and benefits were discounted at 5.0 % per annum.

RESULTS

For each patient followed up over 10 years, NNT to prevent one additional event (thromboembolic event, death) for apixaban compared to aspirin was 4.6 and 11.8, respectively. NNH was 35.9 for non-fatal major bleeding. The model predicted that compared to aspirin, apixaban would lead to 0.33 YoLS (discounted) and 0.29 QALYs gained (discounted), at an incremental cost of AUD$1996 (discounted). This resulted in ICERs of AUD$6011 per YoLS and AUD$6929 per QALY gained. In the sensitivity analyses, ICERs were most sensitive to efficacy measures derived from the AVERROES study, and time frame.

CONCLUSION

Compared to aspirin, apixaban is likely to be cost effective in preventing thromboembolic disease among VKA unsuitable patients with atrial fibrillation.

Screening strategies for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that increases the risk of thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation therapy to prevent AF-related stroke has been shown to be cost-effective. A national screening programme for AF may prevent AF-related events, but would involve a substantial investment of NHS resources.

Objectives

To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of screening tests for AF, update a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating screening strategies for AF, develop an economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies and review observational studies of AF screening to provide inputs to the model.

Design

Systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Setting

Primary care.

Participants

Adults.

Intervention

Screening strategies, defined by screening test, age at initial and final screens, screening interval and format of screening {systematic opportunistic screening [individuals offered screening if they consult with their general practitioner (GP)] or systematic population screening (when all eligible individuals are invited to screening)}.

Main outcome measures

Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios; the odds ratio of detecting new AF cases compared with no screening; and the mean incremental net benefit compared with no screening.

Review methods

Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A DTA meta-analysis was perfomed, and a decision tree and Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the screening strategies.

Results

Diagnostic test accuracy depended on the screening test and how it was interpreted. In general, the screening tests identified in our review had high sensitivity (> 0.9). Systematic population and systematic opportunistic screening strategies were found to be similarly effective, with an estimated 170 individuals needed to be screened to detect one additional AF case compared with no screening. Systematic opportunistic screening was more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening, as long as the uptake of opportunistic screening observed in randomised controlled trials translates to practice. Modified blood pressure monitors, photoplethysmography or nurse pulse palpation were more likely to be cost-effective than other screening tests. A screening strategy with an initial screening age of 65 years and repeated screens every 5 years until age 80 years was likely to be cost-effective, provided that compliance with treatment does not decline with increasing age.

Conclusions

A national screening programme for AF is likely to represent a cost-effective use of resources. Systematic opportunistic screening is more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening. Nurse pulse palpation or modified blood pressure monitors would be appropriate screening tests, with confirmation by diagnostic 12-lead electrocardiography interpreted by a trained GP, with referral to a specialist in the case of an unclear diagnosis. Implementation strategies to operationalise uptake of systematic opportunistic screening in primary care should accompany any screening recommendations.

Limitations

Many inputs for the economic model relied on a single trial [the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly (SAFE) study] and DTA results were based on a few studies at high risk of bias/of low applicability.

Future work

Comparative studies measuring long-term outcomes of screening strategies and DTA studies for new, emerging technologies and to replicate the results for photoplethysmography and GP interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiography in a screening population.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013739.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Nonvitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

In a previous systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of nonvitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and stroke or transient ischemic attack. Since then, new information became available.

Aim

The aim of the present work was to update the results of the previous systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed until 24 August 2016 for randomized controlled trials using the following search items: “atrial fibrillation” and “anticoagulation” and “warfarin” and “previous stroke or transient ischemic attack.” Eligible studies had to be phase III trials in patients with atrial fibrillation comparing warfarin with nonvitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants currently on the market or with the intention to be brought to the market in North America or Europe. The outcomes assessed in the efficacy analysis included stroke or systemic embolism, stroke, ischemic or unknown stroke, disabling or fatal stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, cardiovascular death, death from any cause, and myocardial infarction. The outcomes assessed in the safety analysis included major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and major gastrointestinal bleeding. We performed fixed effects analyses on intention-to-treat basis.

Results

Among 183 potentially eligible articles, four were included in the meta-analysis. In 20,500 patients, compared to warfarin, nonvitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants were associated with a significant reduction of stroke/systemic embolism (relative risk reduction: 13.7%, absolute risk reduction: 0.78%, number needed to treat to prevent one event: 127), hemorrhagic stroke (relative risk reduction: 50.0%, absolute risk reduction: 0.63%, number needed to treat: 157), any stroke (relative risk reduction: 13.1%, absolute risk reduction: 0.7%, number needed to treat: 142), and intracranial hemorrhage (relative risk reduction: 46.1%, absolute risk reduction: 0.88%, number needed to treat: 113) over 1.8–2.8 years.

Conclusions

This updated meta-analysis in 20,500 atrial fibrillation patients with previous stroke or transient ischemic attack shows that compared to warfarin non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants are associated with a significant reduction of stroke, stroke or systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, and intracranial bleeding.

The Cost Effectiveness of LAA Exclusion

Left atrial appendage (LAA) exclusion strategies are increasingly utilized for stroke prevention in lieu of oral anticoagulants. Reductions in bleeding risk and long-term compliance issues bundled with comparable stroke prevention benefits have made these interventions increasingly attractive. Unfortunately, healthcare funding remains limited. Comparative cost economic analyses are therefore critical in optimizing resource allocation. In this review we seek to discourse the cost economics analysis of LAA exclusion over available therapeutic alternatives (warfarin and the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs)). .

Uso de los anticoagulantes orales directos en la práctica clínica

<p>Los anticoagulantes orales directos surgieron en respuesta a la búsqueda de un anticoagulante ideal después de que la warfarina fuera por mucho tiempo el único disponible. Los inhibidores del factor X activado —rivaroxabán y apixabán— y el inhibidor de trombina —dabigatrán etexilato— ya están aprobados en Colombia. Estos grupos farmacológicos están indicados en la tromboprofilaxis luego de artroplastia de rodilla y cadera, en la prevención del accidente cerebrovascular y el embolismo sistémico en pacientes con fibrilación auricular no valvular y en el tratamiento del tromboembolismo venoso. La aprobación de los inhibidores se dio luego de mostrar eficacia y seguridad al compararse con warfarina y enoxaparina. Entre las ventajas que estos presentan figuran las siguientes: inicio rápido de acción, efecto predecible, poca variabilidad interindividual que elimina la necesidad de la monitorización frecuente y menos interacciones medicamentosas; pero, al igual que en la warfarina, el sangrado es el principal evento adverso. El objetivo de esta revisión es conocer la farmacología de los anticoagulantes orales directos aprobados en Colombia, los resultados de los ensayos clínicos que respaldan su uso, la dosificación, el uso perioperatorio y el cambio entre anticoagulantes; situaciones que plantean particularidades para cada uno.</p>

[Clinical and economic consequences of using dabigatran or rivaroxaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Atrial fibrillation is a supraventricular arrhythmia that increases the risk of ischemic stroke and other thromboembolic events. Recently new treatment options have emerged whose cost-effectiveness relative to conventional therapy (warfarin) is well demonstrated. This study compares the clinical benefits and economic costs associated with the new oral anticoagulants most used in Portugal: dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

METHODS

The results of an indirect comparison of the RE-LY and ROCKET AF trials, which enabled differences in the efficacy of dabigatran and rivaroxaban to be determined, were used in a Markov model simulating patient outcomes in terms of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, acute myocardial infarction and intra- and extracranial bleeding.

RESULTS

The use of dabigatran is associated with better clinical results. The reduction in events is reflected in longer survival (8.41 vs. 8.26 years) and more quality-adjusted life years (5.87 vs. 5.74), while the lower daily treatment cost and the reduction in event-related costs lead to a saving of 367 euros per patient from a societal perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that dabigatran is a dominant alternative, i.e., it produces better clinical results at a lower cost. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the results are robust even considering the uncertainty inherent in an indirect comparison. It can thus be concluded that in clinical practice in Portugal the use of dabigatran is to be preferred to the use of rivaroxaban.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of apixaban versus acetylsalicylic acid in the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Spain]

Objetivo

Evaluar el coste-utilidad de apixabán frente al ácido acetilsalicílico (AAS) en la prevención del ictus en pacientes con fibrilación auricular no valvular (FANV) con contraindicación de antagonistas de la vitamina K en España.

Métodos

Se adaptó un modelo de Markov, simulando toda la vida del paciente. Los datos de eficacia y seguridad provienen del ensayo clínico AVERROES. Perspectivas del análisis: Sistema Nacional de Salud (SNS) y sociedad. El coste de los medicamentos se calculó según las dosis recomendadas. Los costes de las complicaciones y el manejo de la FANV proceden de fuentes españolas.

Resultados

Si una cohorte de 1.000 pacientes con FANV fuese tratada durante toda su vida con apixabán en lugar de AAS, se evitarían 48 ictus isquémicos, 10 embolismos sistémicos y 53 muertes relacionadas. Cada paciente tratado con apixabán obtendría más años de vida ganados (0,303 AVG) y más años de vida ajustados por calidad (0,277 AVAC ganados). Los costes para el SNS serían superiores con apixabán (1.742 € más por paciente), pero la inclusión de los costes informales generaría 2.887 € de ahorro por paciente. El resultado sería un coste por AVG y AVAC ganado de 5.749 € y 6.289 € respectivamente para el SNS, siendo apixabán dominante (más eficaz con menos costes que AAS) desde la perspectiva de la sociedad. Los análisis de sensibilidad confirmaron la estabilidad del caso base.

Conclusiones

Según el presente modelo, apixabán sería un tratamiento coste-efectivo en comparación con AAS en la prevención del ictus en pacientes con FANV en España.

Implementing Guidelines: The Cost and Clinical Impact of Anticoagulants in the UK Atrial Fibrillation Population

BACKGROUND

Updated treatment guidelines for atrial fibrillation (AF) have been released by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK, and highlight a current shortfall in the prescription of anticoagulants to patients with AF for stroke prevention.

OBJECTIVE

To design a budget impact model as a planning tool for UK Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) looking to budget for greater use of anticoagulants in the AF population.

METHODS

An Excel® model was developed to estimate the five-year impact of gradually treating all eligible patients with AF who are currently not being prescribed anticoagulants, both in terms of the effect on key clinical outcomes (strokes, major bleeds and mortality) and the associated financial impact.

RESULTS

For a population of 251,693 (average CCG size) with an estimated 2626 prevalent patients and an additional 546 incident cases annually, the model estimated that increasing the proportion of the eligible AF patient population receiving anticoagulation by a fraction would require an additional budget of GBP139,961 in Year 1 to treat an additional 314 patients. This would rise to GBP1,004,900 in Year 5 to treat an additional 2242 patients, with all eligible patients treated by this year. The price year was 2014. Over the 5-year timeframe, this could lead to the prevention of 24 strokes and 29 deaths, with an increase of 31 major bleeds.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical benefits of appropriate anticoagulation are widely recognised; however, full implementation can be difficult and costly. Therefore, the development of models can support the planning process by facilitating discussion among stakeholders on how best they can reach full implementation. The model is flexible and can be adapted to suit different payers.

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.

Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Novel oral anticoagulants are emerging options for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic diseases. They are increasingly used in clinical practice due to their simplicity of use and clinical benefits, but an important step is to evaluate their cost-effectiveness. The aim of the AFFORD study (A Review of Cost EFFectiveness of Novel ORal Anticoagulant Drugs) was to perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted by searching the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Knowledge databases to identify all cost-effectiveness studies of novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in AF.

RESULTS

The search identified 27 studies, 18 with dabigatran, three with apixaban, two with rivaroxaban and four with at least two of these drugs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 30 405 ± 16 101 euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for dabigatran 110 mg, 17 566 ± 16 902 euros/QALY for dabigatran 150 mg, 8102 ± 3252 euros/QALY for age-adjusted dabigatran, 11 897 ± 3341 euros/QALY for apixaban and 17 960 ± 12 005 euros/QALY for rivaroxaban.

CONCLUSION

The present systematic review demonstrates that novel oral anticoagulants are cost-effective for stroke prevention in AF.

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

We did a cost-utility analysis for the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in the German population based on the quality-adjusted life years (QALY), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). The aim of our investigation was to examine cost-utility for current German drug market costs and compared to other countries. Outcome data were taken from dabigatran's RE-LY, rivaroxaban's ROCKET AF, and apixaban's ARISTOTLE trials. A Markov decision model, the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), and further sensitivity analyses were used to simulate comparisons between NOACs over a follow up period of 20 years. The main perspective used for the analyses is from a German public health care insurance perspective. The base-case analyses of a 65 years old person with a CHADS2 score >1 resulted in 7.56-7.64 QALYs gained for warfarin. NOACs added 0.04-0.19 QALYs. Total costs for warfarin ranged from 7622 to 9069<euro> and for NOACs from 19537 to 20048<euro>. The sensitivity analysis indicated that current German market costs for the NOACs exceed a willingness-to-pay threshold of (hypothetical) 50000<euro>/QALY in all treatment regimen. The MCS showed willingness-to-pay thresholds from 60500<euro>/QALY for apixaban to 278000<euro>/QALY for dabigatran 110 mg bid, with values for dabigatran 150 mg bid and rivaroxaban in between. In conclusion, from a German public health care insurance perspective current market costs are high in relation to the quality of life gained. These results from clinical studies (efficacy) remain to be confirmed under real life conditions (effectiveness).

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.

Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

The aim of this updated statement is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of stroke among individuals who have not previously experienced a stroke or transient ischemic attack. Evidence-based recommendations are included for the control of risk factors, interventional approaches to atherosclerotic disease of the cervicocephalic circulation, and antithrombotic treatments for preventing thrombotic and thromboembolic stroke. Further recommendations are provided for genetic and pharmacogenetic testing and for the prevention of stroke in a variety of other specific circumstances, including sickle cell disease and patent foramen ovale.

Use of novel oral anticoagulant agents in atrial fibrillation: current evidence and future perspective

The increasing availability of novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) offers alternatives for patients currently prescribed warfarin. This article provides a brief overview on the mechanism and clinical use of these drugs as well as a review of the pivotal clinical trials providing the basis for each agent's safety and efficacy. While these agents are currently Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for anticoagulation of patients with nonvalvular AF, additional studies continually emerge offering further insight into the application of these agents in other areas.

Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in a health resource-limited setting

PURPOSE

To compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of five alternative chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) management strategies: rivaroxaban, warfarin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, aspirin and no prevention.

METHODS

An individual-level state-transition model was developed to track the lifetime disease course associated with AF. The clinical and utility data were derived from published studies. The cost data were estimated based on local charges and current Chinese practices. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty on the results.

RESULTS

For base-case patients with a CHADS2 score of 3, the cost per additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained for rivaroxaban compared with no prevention, aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel and warfarin was $116,884, $153,944, $155,979 and $216,273, respectively. CHADS2 score had a substantial impact on the model outcomes for different prevention strategies. The time distribution of warfarin international normalised ratio (INR), stroke and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) risks, cost of rivaroxaban and utility of warfarin therapy had substantial impacts on the results. Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $16,350/QALY, no prevention strategy was the preferred therapy for a patient with a low risk for stroke and a high risk for ICH; aspirin was preferred for patients with a moderate risk for stroke and ICH; and warfarin was preferred for patients with a high risk for stroke and a low risk of ICH.

CONCLUSION

In the context of limited health resources, rivaroxaban is unlikely to be cost-effective, although it provided more health benefits comparing with other strategies. Additionally, warfarin with good INR control might be more suitable for AF patients in developing regions.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation in different age subgroups

This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran 150 mg twice daily versus warfarin for stroke and systemic embolism risk reduction in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation initiating treatment before age 75 (<75), at or after age 75 (≥ 75), and the overall population (All) from a US Medicare payer perspective. Clinical event rates by age cohort with dabigatran or warfarin for safety-on-treatment and intent-to-treat populations were estimated from Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY). An economic model was adapted using these data to evaluate the impact of starting age on clinical and economic outcomes. Costs were obtained from Medicare payment schedules and utilities from publications. Model outputs included event rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The RE-LY analysis shows that the <75 cohort has lower rates of all events than the ≥ 75 cohort; versus warfarin, dabigatran performed better in main efficacy and safety in all age cohorts with the exception of extracranial hemorrhage in the ≥ 75 cohort. The clinical event costs avoided per patient for dabigatran were $1,100, $135, and $713 for cohorts <75, ≥ 75, and All, respectively. Extrapolating over a lifetime horizon, the model found that dabigatran resulted in lower rates of stroke and intracranial hemorrhage and higher rates for extracranial hemorrhage versus warfarin for all age cohorts. Lifetime quality-adjusted life-years and costs were higher for dabigatran than warfarin, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $52,773, $65,946, and $56,131 for cohorts <75, ≥ 75, and All, respectively. In conclusion, dabigatran was cost-effective versus warfarin in US patients with atrial fibrillation regardless of age of treatment initiation.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs): clinical evidence and therapeutic considerations

Warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist, is the most widely used oral anticoagulant in the world. It is cheap and effective, but its use is limited in many patients by unpredictable levels of anticoagulation, which increases the risk of thromboembolic or haemorrhagic complications. It also requires regular blood monitoring and dose adjustment. New classes of drugs, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), are now supported as alternatives to warfarin. Three NOACs are licensed: dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor, and rivaroxaban and apixaban, antagonists of factor Xa. NOACs do not require routine blood monitoring or dose adjustment. They have a rapid onset and offset of action and fewer food and drug interactions. Current indications include treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism and prevention of cardioembolic disease in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Effective antidotes are lacking and some caution must be used in severe renal impairment, but favourable trial evidence has led to their widespread adoption. Research is ongoing, and an increase in their use and indications is expected in the coming years.

Anticoagulation for noncardiac indications in neurologic patients: comparative use of non-vitamin k oral anticoagulants, low-molecular-weight heparins, and warfarin

OPINION STATEMENT

Patients with neurologic disorders may develop a wide variety of thromboembolic events, both as a primary manifestation and as a consequence of their underlying neurologic condition. There are many available options for anticoagulation, ranging from warfarin to the parenteral subcutaneously administered anticoagulants to the non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Warfarin is orally available, well-studied, and easily reversible in the setting of bleeding, but has a prolonged onset of action, measured in days, and equally slow offset; requires frequent monitoring for dose titration; and has multiple drug-drug and food-drug interactions. Parenteral heparin-based anticoagulants are well-studied and have more predictable pharmacokinetics but are often more expensive, only partially reversible, and require daily injections, which can be difficult for patients to tolerate over long periods of time. The NOACs are easy to administer and have predictable pharmacokinetics but are expensive, not easily reversible, and are not as extensively studied. Specific agents are preferable in some defined neurologic conditions. For acute ischemic stroke, we do not recommend immediate anticoagulation with any agent. For patients with intracranial malignancy (either primary or metastatic), we recommend a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) rather than warfarin or a NOAC. For thromboembolic disease in the setting of spinal cord injury, warfarin, LMWH, or the NOACs are reasonable options. In the setting of VTE or stroke related to antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS), we recommend long-term warfarin anticoagulation with an INR goal of 2-3, pending the results of ongoing research involving the NOACs. For cerebral venous sinus thrombosis not related to malignancy or APS, we recommend the use of LMWH in the acute setting, followed by at least three months of warfarin. In this article, we discuss the pharmacology, pathophysiology, and comparative research that served as a basis for our recommendations.

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonists for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a French payer perspective

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is the main cause of stroke, but the risk can be reduced, usually with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin. The RE-LY atrial fibrillation study demonstrated that the rates of stroke and systemic embolism with dabigatran (an oral direct thrombin inhibitor) were similar to or lower than those with warfarin.

AIMS

To estimate the cost-effectiveness, from a French payer perspective, of dabigatran (150 or 110mg bid for patients<or≥80 years, respectively) versus warfarin.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness was modeled using a Markov model in a cohort of 10,000 patients with atrial fibrillation followed over their lifetime. Events accounted for included ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, transient ischemic attack, hemorrhage, myocardial infarction and death. The model patient population matched the RE-LY patients. Dabigatran was compared with "trial-like" warfarin and "real-world" prescribing. Risks of clinical events were obtained from RE-LY. Event and follow-up costs were based on the French national tariff or published literature. Clinical events, QALYs, total costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.

RESULTS

The ICERs of dabigatran compared with "trial-like" warfarin and "real-world" prescribing were €15,838/QALY and €7473/QALY, respectively. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed these to be robust to uncertainty and variability in the model parameters. The ICER for dabigatran was below €24,000/QALY or €36,000/QALY in 71% or 92%, respectively, of the simulations when compared with "trial-like" warfarin and 100% and 100%, respectively, when compared with "real-world" prescribing.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the use of dabigatran in French atrial fibrillation patients is cost-effective, according to usually accepted thresholds.

Controversies regarding the new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation

Increasing use of the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) – dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban – has prompted considerable discussion in the medical community even as warfarin remains the mainstay of therapy. This article raises 10 controversial issues regarding the use of NOACs for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation, and offers a review of the latest available evidence. We provide a brief overview of the mechanism and dosing of these drugs, as well as a summary of the key clinical trials that have brought them into the spotlight. Comparative considerations relative to warfarin such as NOAC safety, efficacy, bleeding risk, reversibility, drug-transitioning and use in patients well controlled on warfarin are addressed. Use in select populations such as the elderly, those with coronary disease, renal impairment, or on multiple anti-platelet drugs is also discussed. Finally, we consider such specific issues as comparative efficacy, off-label use, cost, rebound and management during events. Ultimately, the rise of the NOACs to mainstream use will depend on further data and clinical experience amongst the medical community.

Potential use of NOACs in developing countries: pros and cons

PURPOSE

Although vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are effective for long-term thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation (AF), their limitations have led to widespread underutilisation, especially in the developing world. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged as promising alternatives to VKAs, although there are some particular considerations and challenges to their introduction in developing countries. This review summarises the current state of antithrombotic management of AF in the developing world, explores the early evidence for the NOACs and describes some of the special considerations that must be taken into account when considering the role of the NOACs within developing countries' health care systems.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted via PubMed and Google Scholar to find articles published in English between the years 2000 to 2014. Search terms used were "atrial fibrillation", "oral anticoagulants", "warfarin", "NOACs", "dabigatran", "rivaroxaban", "apixaban", "edoxaban", "time in therapeutic range", "International Normalized Ratio" "cost-effectiveness", "stroke", "adverse-drug reactions" and "drug-drug interactions", together with the individual names of developing countries as listed by the World Bank. We reviewed the results of randomized clinical trials, relevant retrospective and prospective studies, case-studies and review articles.

RESULTS

Many developing countries lack or have sporadic data on the quality of AF management, making it difficult to anticipate the potential impact of NOACs in these settings. The utilisation of anticoagulants for AF appears highly variable in developing countries. Given the issues associated with VKA therapy in many developing countries, NOACs offer some potential advantages; however, there is insufficient evidence to advocate the widespread replacement of warfarin at present. VKAs may continue to have a role in selected patients or countries, especially if alternative monitoring strategies can be utilised.

CONCLUSION

The evaluation of the introduction of NOACs should consider safety, budget concerns and the quality of oral anticoagulation care achieved by each country. Prospective registries will be important in developing countries to better elucidate the comparative safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of NOACs and VKAs as NOACs are introduced into practice.

Novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey

The purpose of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) survey was to assess clinical practice in relation to stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), particularly into the use of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for stroke prevention, among members of the EHRA electrophysiology (EP) research network. In this EP Wire survey, we have provided some insights into current practice in Europe for the use of NOACs for stroke prevention in AF. There were clear practice differences evident, and also the need for greater adherence to the guidelines, especially since guideline adherent management results in better outcomes in AF.

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluation of dabigatran, a new anti-antithrombotic agent, is done mostly in Western countries. It remains to be seen whether dabigatran will be cost effective in a practice environment where warfarin is significantly underused and the costs of both warfarin and international normalized ration INR monitoring are cheap.

METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis with a Markov model to evaluate the value of dabigatran to prevent stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Taiwan. Dabigatran was given through sequential dosing, where patients<80 years old received 150 mg of dabigatran twice a day and the dosage was reduced to 110 mgs for patients ≥ 80 years old. Dabigatran was compared with warfarin under two scenarios: the "real-world adjusted-dose warfarin" assuming all AF patients eligible for warfarin were given the medication and maintained at the INR observed in routine clinical practice in Taiwan, and the "real-world prescribing behaviour" similar to the treatment with antithrombotics in real-world practice in Taiwan, where eligible patients could receive warfarin, aspirin, or no treatment.

RESULTS

The percentage of AF patients who received warfarin, aspirin or no treatment in Taiwan was 16%, 62% and 22%, respectively. The event rates of ischemic stroke per 100 patient-years were 4.5, 8.0, and 6.0 for sequential dabigatran, real-world prescribing behaviour and real-world warfarin use, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $280 US per quality-adjusted-year (QALY) in the real-world prescribing scenario and $10,551 US/QALY in real-word warfarin use.

CONCLUSIONS

Dabigatran was highly cost-effective in a clinical practice setting where warfarin has been significantly underused.