Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Compared to Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Rivaroxaban is noninferior to warfarin for preventing stroke or systemic embolism in patients with high-risk atrial fibrillation (AF) and is associated with a lower rate of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared to adjusted-dose warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF.

Methods

We built a Markov model using the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. The base-case analysis assumed a cohort of patients with prevalent AF who were aged 18 years or older without contraindications to anticoagulation.

Results

Number of patients with CHA?DS?-VASc scores 0, 1 and ?2 were 56 (0.2%), 1,944 (6.3%) and 28,650 (93.5%), respectively. In patients with CHA?DS?-VASc scores ?2, the incidence rate of ischemic stroke was 3.11% and 3.76% in warfarin and rivaroxaban groups, respectively. The incidence rates of ICH were 0.42% and 0.15%, and those of gastrointestinal bleeding were 0.32% and 0.15% in warfarin and rivaroxaban, respectively. Patients with AF treated with rivaroxaban lived an average of 11.8 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a lifetime treatment cost of $20,886. Those receiving warfarin lived an average of 11.4 QALYs and incurred costs of $17,151. Patients with rivaroxaban gained an additional 0.4 QALYs over a lifetime with an additional cost of $3,735, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9,707 per QALY.

Conclusions

Patients who had been treated with rivaroxaban may be a cost-effective alternative to warfarin for stroke prevention in Korean patients with AF.

SUBMITTER: Kim H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6393322 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Compared to Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation.

Kim Hyunmee H Kim Hyeongsoo H Cho Seong Kyung SK Kim Jin Bae JB Joung Boyoung B Kim Changsoo C

Korean circulation journal 20181114 3

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Rivaroxaban is noninferior to warfarin for preventing stroke or systemic embolism in patients with high-risk atrial fibrillation (AF) and is associated with a lower rate of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared to adjusted-dose warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF.<h4>Methods</h4>We built a Markov model using the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. The ...[more]

PMID: 30468041

Similar Datasets

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: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.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Compared to Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation.

Background and objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Compared to Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets