Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban vs warfarin for secondary stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the cost-effectiveness of apixaban vs warfarin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods

Using standard methods, we created a Markov decision model based on the estimated cost of apixaban and data from the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial and other trials of warfarin therapy for AF. We quantified the cost and quality-adjusted life expectancy resulting from apixaban 5 mg twice daily compared with those from warfarin therapy targeted to an international normalized ratio of 2-3. Our base case population was a cohort of 70-year-old patients with no contraindication to anticoagulation and a history of stroke or TIA from nonvalvular AF.

Results

Warfarin therapy resulted in a quality-adjusted life expectancy of 3.91 years at a cost of $378,500. In comparison, treatment with apixaban led to a quality-adjusted life expectancy of 4.19 years at a cost of $381,700. Therefore, apixaban provided a gain of 0.28 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an additional cost of $3,200, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $11,400 per QALY. Our findings were robust in univariate sensitivity analyses varying model inputs across plausible ranges. In Monte Carlo analysis, apixaban was cost-effective in 62% of simulations using a threshold of $50,000 per QALY and 81% of simulations using a threshold of $100,000 per QALY.

Conclusions

Apixaban appears to be cost-effective relative to warfarin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with AF, assuming that it is introduced at a price similar to that of dabigatran.

SUBMITTER: Kamel H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3525294 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban vs warfarin for secondary stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

Kamel Hooman H Easton J Donald JD Johnston S Claiborne SC Kim Anthony S AS

Neurology 20120919 14

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the cost-effectiveness of apixaban vs warfarin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).<h4>Methods</h4>Using standard methods, we created a Markov decision model based on the estimated cost of apixaban and data from the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial and other trials of warfarin therapy for AF. We quantified the cost and quality-adjusted life expectancy result ...[more]

PMID: 22993279

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveOur objective was to assess the cost effectiveness of apixaban versus edoxaban in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Spain.MethodsWe customized a Markov model with ten health states to estimate the lifetime economic and clinical outcomes in 6-week cycles. The efficacy (clinical event rates per 100 patient-years) and safety data were derived from a pairwise indirect treatment comparison. The analysis was conducted from both the national health service (NHS) and societal perspectives, and included pharmaceutical costs (retail price plus value-added tax (VAT) and applicable national deductions) according to daily dosages (apixaban 10 mg (5 mg twice daily (bid)) and edoxaban 60 or 30 mg) and complications and disease-management costs, obtained from national databases. Utilities for quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) calculations reflected EuroQoL 5-Dimension scores in patients with AF. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied for costs (€, year 2019 values) and outcomes.ResultsIn a 1000-patient cohort, apixaban 5 mg bid versus edoxaban 60 mg could avoid five strokes, six major bleedings and 29 clinically relevant non-major bleedings (CRNMBs). Compared with edoxaban 30 mg, apixaban could avoid 21 strokes and two SEs. An increase in bleedings was observed with apixaban (seven haemorrhagic strokes, 48 major bleedings and 17 CRNMBs). Apixaban yielded 0.04 additional QALYs compared with edoxaban 60 mg or 30 mg. Incremental costs/QALY were €9639.33 and €354.22 for apixaban versus edoxaban 60 mg and edoxaban 30 mg, respectively, from the NHS perspective and €7756.62 for apixaban versus edoxaban 60 mg from the societal perspective. Apixaban was dominant versus edoxaban 30 mg from the societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model.ConclusionsThis study suggests that apixaban 5 mg bid is a cost-effective alternative to edoxaban for stroke prevention in the AF population in Spain.

Project description:IntroductionEconomic evaluations are becoming increasingly important due to limitations in economic resources, the expense of many new treatments, the need to allocate health spending as effectively as possible, and the need to inform decision makers. Based on the data from the apixaban studies (ARISTOTLE and AVERROES), several economic evaluations have been performed in various countries to demonstrate the efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin and aspirin or other new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for preventing stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review of published economic evaluations with apixaban in the indication of stroke prevention in patients with NVAF.MethodsA search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Index Medicus Español was conducted in June 2015. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established. The main characteristics were recorded for all relevant articles after being reviewed. In addition, a weighted version of the Drummond's checklist was used to further assess the quality of the selected studies.ResultsAfter review, 26 cost-effectiveness analyses through Markov models were included; the identified economic evaluations represent different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds, discount rates, medical costs, and healthcare systems. Apixaban was compared with warfarin/acenocoumarol in 7 of them (27%), with warfarin/NOACs in 14 (54%), with aspirin in 2 (8%), and with warfarin/aspirin in 3 (11%). Models were conducted from Europe (69%), USA (23%), Australia (4%), and Latin America (4%). All models reported cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, 92% reported using a payer perspective, and 8% using a societal perspective; the median quality score of the selected studies was 89 (out of 119), with a range of 55-103. In models performed in Europe, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of apixaban versus warfarin ranged from €5607/QALY to €57,245/QALY, while ICERs versus aspirin ranged from being dominant to €7334/QALY. In models carried out in the USA, ICERs of apixaban versus warfarin ranged from being dominant to $93,063/QALY.ConclusionDifferent cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that apixaban is a cost-effective therapeutic option according to the WTP thresholds used in countries where cost-effectiveness analyses, were performed.FundingBMS and Pfizer.

Project description:Background and purposeComparative effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and high polypharmacy are unknown.MethodsWe used Medicare administrative data to evaluate patients with new atrial fibrillation diagnosis from 2015 to 2017, who initiated an oral anticoagulant within 90 days of diagnosis. Patients taking ≤3, 4 to 8, or ≥9 other prescription medications were categorized as having low, moderate, or high polypharmacy, respectively. Within polypharmacy categories, patients receiving apixaban 5 mg twice daily, rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily, or warfarin were matched using a 3-way propensity score matching. Study outcomes included ischemic stroke, bleeding, and all-cause mortality.ResultsThe study cohort included 6985 patients using apixaban, 3838 using rivaroxaban, and 6639 using warfarin. In the propensity-matched cohorts there was no difference in risk of ischemic stroke between the 3 drugs in patients with low and moderate polypharmacy. However, among patients with high polypharmacy, the risk of ischemic stroke was higher with apixaban compared with warfarin (adjusted hazard ratio 2.34 [95% CI, 1.01-5.42]; P=0.05) and similar to rivaroxaban (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.38 [95% CI, 0.67-2.84]; P=0.4). There was no difference in risk of death between the 3 drugs in patients with low and moderate polypharmacy, but apixaban was associated with a higher risk of death compared with rivaroxaban (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.01-4.08]; P=0.05) in the high polypharmacy group. Apixaban had lower bleeding risk compared with warfarin in the low polypharmacy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.32-0.90]; P=0.02), but there was no difference in bleeding between the 3 drugs in the moderate and high polypharmacy groups.ConclusionsOur study suggests that among patients with significant polypharmacy (>8 drugs), there may be a higher stroke and mortality risk with apixaban compared with warfarin and rivaroxaban. However, differences were of borderline significance.

Project description:BackgroundA previous FDA study reported a favorable benefit risk for apixaban compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in older non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients (≥ 65 years). However, it remains unclear whether this favorable benefit risk persists in other populations including younger users. We examined if a similar benefit risk was observed in the Sentinel System and if it varied by age group.ObjectiveTo examine the risk of ischemic stroke, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in apixaban users compared with warfarin users in Sentinel Distributed Database (SDD).Design and participantsA retrospective new user cohort study was conducted among patients, 21 years and older initiating apixaban and warfarin for NVAF, between December 28, 2012, and June 30, 2018, in the SDD.Main measuresCox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome (ischemic stroke, GI bleeding, and ICH) in propensity score matched apixaban users compared with the warfarin users. Subgroup analyses by age (21-64, 65-74, and 75+ years) were conducted.Key resultsAfter matching, 55.3% and 58.4% (n = 55,038) of the apixaban and warfarin users were included in the main analysis. GI bleeding was the most common outcome. The HR (95% CI) for GI bleeding, ICH, and ischemic stroke in apixaban users compared with warfarin users were 0.57 (0.50-0.66), 0.53 (0.40-0.70), and 0.56 (0.45-0.71) respectively. The reduced risk of these outcomes in apixaban compared with warfarin users persisted across age groups.ConclusionIn NVAF patients of all ages initiating either apixaban or warfarin for stroke prevention in the Sentinel System, apixaban was associated with a decreased risk of GI bleeding, ICH, and ischemic stroke compared with warfarin. Among patients less than 65 years of age, apixaban use was associated with a decreased risk of GI bleeding and ischemic stroke.

Project description:ObjectivesMany of the cost-effectiveness analyses of apixaban against warfarin focused on Western populations but Asian evidence remains less clear. The present study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of apixaban against warfarin in Chinese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) from a public institutional perspective in Hong Kong.MethodsWe used a Markov model incorporating 12 health state transitions, and simulated the disease progression of NVAF in 1,000 hypothetical patients treated with apixaban/warfarin. Risks of clinical events were based on the ARISTOTLE trial and were adjusted with local International Normalized Ratio control, defined as the time in therapeutic range. Real-life input for the model, including patients' demographics and clinical profiles, post-event treatment patterns, and healthcare costs, were determined by a retrospective cohort of 40,569 incident patients retrieved from a Hong Kong-wide electronic medical database. Main outcome measurements included numbers of thromboembolic and bleeding events, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct healthcare cost. When comparing apixaban and warfarin, treatment with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than one local GDP per capita (USD 33,534 in 2014) was defined to be cost-effective.ResultsIn the lifetime simulation, fewer numbers of events were estimated for the apixaban group, resulting in reduced event-related direct medical costs. The estimated ICER of apixaban was USD 7,057 per QALY at base-case analysis and ranged from USD 1,061 to 14,867 per QALY under the 116 tested scenarios in deterministic sensitivity analysis. While in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of apixaban being the cost-effective alternative to warfarin was 96% and 98% at a willingness to pay threshold of USD 33,534 and 100,602 per QALY, respectively.ConclusionsApixaban is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to warfarin for stroke prophylaxis in Chinese patients with NVAF in Hong Kong.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban vs warfarin for secondary stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban vs warfarin for secondary stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets