Dataset Information

All-Cause, Stroke-, and Bleed-Specific Healthcare Costs: Comparison among Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) Newly Treated with Dabigatran or Warfarin.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Our objective was to compare all-cause and stroke- and bleed-specific healthcare costs among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated with dabigatran or warfarin.

Methods

Administrative claims data from the MarketScan^® Databases for 2009-2014 were used. Patients with NVAF newly treated with dabigatran were matched 1:1 to those treated with warfarin. All-cause and stroke- and bleed-specific costs per patient per month (PPPM) ($US, year 2015 values) up to a 12-month follow-up period were analyzed. Stroke- or bleed-specific costs were defined as hospitalizations with stroke or bleed as the primary discharge diagnosis and outpatient claims with stroke or bleed diagnosis in any position. Differences in costs between dabigatran and warfarin users were assessed using descriptive and multivariate analyses.

Results

A total of 18,980 dabigatran-treated patients were matched to corresponding warfarin-treated patients. Adjusted all-cause total healthcare, inpatient, and outpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran cohort ($US3053 vs. 3433; $US904 vs. 1194; $US1594 vs. 1894, respectively; all p < 0.001), but mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher ($US556 vs. 345, p < 0.001). Stroke-specific total healthcare and outpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran than for the warfarin cohort ($US30.37 vs. 40.99 and $US7.36 vs. 12.20, respectively; p < 0.05 for both values). Similarly, bleed-specific total healthcare and inpatient costs were significantly lower for the dabigatran than for the warfarin cohort ($US50.00 vs. 73.49 and $US27.75 vs. 48.66, respectively; p < 0.01 for both values).

Conclusion

Patients receiving dabigatran had significantly lower total all-cause, inpatient, and outpatient costs but higher pharmacy costs than those receiving warfarin. In addition, stroke-specific total and outpatient costs and bleed-specific total and inpatient costs were significantly lower in dabigatran users compared with warfarin users.

SUBMITTER: Gilligan AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5701952 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the incremental net health benefits of dabigatran etexilate 110 mg and 150 mg twice daily and warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and to estimate the cost effectiveness of dabigatran in the United Kingdom.DesignQuantitative benefit-harm and economic analyses using a discrete event simulation model to extrapolate the findings of the RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy) study to a lifetime horizon.SettingUK National Health Service. Population Cohorts of 50,000 simulated patients at moderate to high risk of stroke with a mean baseline CHADS(2) (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥ 75 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke/transient ischaemic attack) score of 2.1.Main outcome measuresQuality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and incremental cost per QALY of dabigatran compared with warfarin.ResultsCompared with warfarin, low dose and high dose dabigatran were associated with positive incremental net benefits of 0.094 (95% central range -0.083 to 0.267) and 0.146 (-0.029 to 0.322) QALYs. Positive incremental net benefits resulted for high dose dabigatran in 94% of simulations versus warfarin and in 76% of those versus low dose dabigatran. In the economic analysis, high dose dabigatran dominated the low dose, had an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £23,082 (€26,700; $35,800) per QALY gained versus warfarin, and was more cost effective in patients with a baseline CHADS(2) score of 3 or above. However, at centres that achieved good control of international normalised ratio, such as those in the UK, dabigatran 150 mg was not cost effective, at £42,386 per QALY gained.ConclusionsThis analysis supports regulatory decisions that dabigatran offers a positive benefit to harm ratio when compared with warfarin. However, no subgroup for which dabigatran 110 mg offered any clinical or economic advantage over 150 mg was identified. High dose dabigatran will be cost effective only for patients at increased risk of stroke or for whom international normalised ratio is likely to be less well controlled.

Project description:BackgroundLimited data are available about the real-world safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs).ObjectivesTo compare the major bleeding risk among newly anticoagulated non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating apixaban, warfarin, dabigatran or rivaroxaban in the United States.Methods and resultsA retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the major bleeding risk among newly anticoagulated NVAF patients initiating warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban. The study used the Truven MarketScan(®) Commercial & Medicare supplemental US database from 1 January 2013 through 31 December 2013. Major bleeding was defined as bleeding requiring hospitalisation. Cox model estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of major bleeding were adjusted for age, gender, baseline comorbidities and co-medications. Among 29 338 newly anticoagulated NVAF patients, 2402 (8.19%) were on apixaban; 4173 (14.22%) on dabigatran; 10 050 (34.26%) on rivaroxaban; and 12 713 (43.33%) on warfarin. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, initiation on warfarin [adjusted HR (aHR): 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-3.33, P=.018] or rivaroxaban (aHR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.26-3.79, P=.005) had significantly greater risk of major bleeding vs apixaban. Dabigatran initiation (aHR: 1.71, 95% CI: 0.94-3.10, P=.079) had a non-significant major bleeding risk vs apixaban. When compared with warfarin, apixaban (aHR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.30-0.89, P=.018) had significantly lower major bleeding risk. Patients initiating rivaroxaban (aHR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.91-1.41, P=.262) or dabigatran (aHR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.64-1.21, P=.446) had a non-significant major bleeding risk vs warfarin.ConclusionAmong newly anticoagulated NVAF patients in the real-world setting, initiation with rivaroxaban or warfarin was associated with a significantly greater risk of major bleeding compared with initiation on apixaban. When compared with warfarin, initiation with apixaban was associated with significantly lower risk of major bleeding. Additional observational studies are required to confirm these findings.