1
|
Noviyani R, Youngkong S, Nathisuwan S, Bagepally BS, Chaikledkaew U, Chaiyakunapruk N, McKay G, Sritara P, Attia J, Thakkinstian A. 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. BMJ Evid Based Med 2022; 27:215-223. [PMID: 34635480 PMCID: PMC9340051 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111634] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rini Noviyani
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Udayana University, Bali, Indonesia
| | - Sitaporn Youngkong
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Surakit Nathisuwan
- Clinical Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | | | - Usa Chaikledkaew
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Gareth McKay
- Centre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University, Belfast, UK
| | - Piyamitr Sritara
- Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - John Attia
- School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ammarin Thakkinstian
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bagepally BS, Chaikledkaew U, Gurav YK, Anothaisintawee T, Youngkong S, Chaiyakunapruk N, McEvoy M, Attia J, Thakkinstian A. Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes who fail metformin monotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2020; 8:8/1/e001020. [PMID: 32690574 PMCID: PMC7371226 DOI: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-001020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2019] [Revised: 02/26/2020] [Accepted: 06/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and to pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) compared with other therapies in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after metformin monotherapy failure. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The study design is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Tufts Registry for eligible cost-utility studies up to June 2018, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. We conducted a systematic review and pooled the INBs of GLP1s compared with other therapies in T2DM after metformin monotherapy failure. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2017 US$. The INBs were calculated and then pooled across studies, stratified by level of country income; a random-effects model was used if heterogeneity was present, and a fixed-effects model if it was absent. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I2 statistic. RESULTS A total of 56 studies were eligible, mainly from high-income countries (HICs). The pooled INBs of GLP1s compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) (n=10), sulfonylureas (n=6), thiazolidinedione (TZD) (n=3), and insulin (n=23) from HICs were US$4012.21 (95% CI US$-571.43 to US$8595.84, I2=0%), US$3857.34 (95% CI US$-7293.93 to US$15 008.61, I2=45.9%), US$37 577.74 (95% CI US$-649.02 to US$75 804.50, I2=92.4%) and US$14 062.42 (95% CI US$8168.69 to US$19 956.15, I2=86.4%), respectively. GLP1s were statistically significantly cost-effective compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas, and TZDs. Among GLP1s, liraglutide was more cost-effective compared with lixisenatide, but not compared with exenatide, with corresponding pooled INBs of US$4555.09 (95% CI US$3992.60 to US$5117.59, I2=0) and US$728.46 (95% CI US$-1436.14 to US$2893.07, I2=0), respectively. CONCLUSION GLP1 agonists are a cost-effective choice compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas and TZDs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42018105193.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bhavani Shankara Bagepally
- Non-Communicable Diseases, ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Usa Chaikledkaew
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Yogesh Krishnarao Gurav
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Epidemiology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Virology, Pune, India
| | - Thunyarat Anothaisintawee
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Sitaporn Youngkong
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | | | - Mark McEvoy
- Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hunter Medical Research Institute, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia
| | - John Attia
- Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hunter Medical Research Institute, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia
- Division of Medicine, John Hunter Hospital, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ammarin Thakkinstian
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|