Dataset Information

A Systematic Literature Review on the Cost-Effectiveness of Apixaban for Stroke Prevention in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Economic 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.

Methods

A 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.

Results

After 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.

Conclusion

Different 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.

Funding

BMS and Pfizer.

SUBMITTER: Pinyol C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5125108 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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.

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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare effectiveness and safety of warfarin and the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in routine care.MethodsFrom nationwide registries, we identified treatment-naïve patients initiating warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or apixaban for non-valvular atrial fibrillation from July 2013 to December 2015 in Norway. We assessed prescription duration using reverse waiting time distribution. Adjusting for confounding in a Cox proportional hazards model, we estimated one-year risks for ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA) or systemic embolism, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding; intracranial; gastrointestinal; and other bleeding. We censored at switch of treatment or 365 days of follow-up.ResultsWe included 30,820 treatment-naïve patients. Compared to warfarin, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for ischemic stroke, TIA or systemic embolism were 0.96 (95% CI 0.71-1.28) for dabigatran, 1.12 (95% CI 0.87-1.45) for rivaroxaban and 0.97 (95% CI 0.75-1.26) for apixaban. Corresponding hazard ratios for major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding were 0.73 (95% CI 0.62-0.86) for dabigatran, 0.97 (95% CI 0.84-1.12) for rivaroxaban and 0.71 (95% CI 0.62-0.82) for apixaban. Statistically significant differences of other safety outcomes compared to warfarin were fewer intracranial bleedings with dabigatran (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.56), rivaroxaban (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.69) and apixaban (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.92); fewer gastrointestinal bleedings with apixaban (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.93); and fewer other bleedings with dabigatran (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.81) and apixaban (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.83).ConclusionAfter 1 year follow-up in treatment-naïve patients initiating oral anticoagulation for non-valvular atrial fibrillation, all DOACs were similarly effective as warfarin in prevention of ischemic stroke, TIA or systemic embolism. Safety from bleedings was similar or better, including fewer intracranial bleedings with all direct oral anticoagulants, fewer gastrointestinal bleedings with apixaban and fewer other bleedings with dabigatran and apixaban.