Dataset Information

A prospective survey of the persistence of warfarin or NOAC in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a COmparison study of Drugs for symptom control and complication prEvention of Atrial Fibrillation (CODE-AF).

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND/AIMS:Efforts to reduce stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have focused on increasing physician adherence to oral anticoagulant (OAC) guidelines; however, the high early discontinuation rate of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) is a limitation. Although non-VKA OACs (NOACs) are more convenient to administer than warfarin, their lack of monitoring may predispose patients to nonpersistence. We compared the persistence of NOAC and VKA treatment for AF in real-world practice. METHODS:In a prospective observational registry (COmparison study of Drugs for symptom control and complication prEvention of Atrial Fibrillation [CODE-AF] registry), 7,013 patients with nonvalvular AF (mean age 67.2 ± 10.9 years, women 36.4%) were consecutively enrolled between June 2016 and June 2017 from 10 tertiary hospitals in Korea. This study included 3,381 patients who started OAC 30 days before enrollment (maintenance group) and 572 patients who newly started OAC (new-starter group). The persistence rate of OAC was evaluated. RESULTS:In the maintenance group, persistence to OAC declined during 6 months, to 88.3% for VKA and 95.5% for NOAC (p < 0.0001). However, the persistence rate was not different among NOACs. In the new-starter group, persistence to OAC declined during 6 months, to 78.9% for VKA and 92.1% for NOAC (p < 0.0001). The persistence rate was lower for rivaroxaban (83.7%) than apixaban (94.6%) and edoxaban (94.1%, p < 0.001). In the new-starter group, diabetes, valve disease, and cancer were related to nonpersistence of OAC. CONCLUSION:Nonpersistence was significantly lower with NOAC than VKA in both the maintenance and new-starter groups. In only the new-starter group, apixaban or edoxaban showed higher persistence rates than rivaroxaban.

SUBMITTER: Kim H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6960047 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A prospective survey of the persistence of warfarin or NOAC in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a COmparison study of Drugs for symptom control and complication prEvention of Atrial Fibrillation (CODE-AF).

Kim Hyeongsoo H Lee Young Soo YS Kim Tae-Hoon TH Cha Myung-Jin MJ Lee Jung Myung JM Park Junbeom J Park Jin-Kyu JK Kang Ki-Woon KW Shim Jaemin J Uhm Jae-Sun JS Park Hyung Wook HW Choi Eue-Keun EK Kim Jin-Bae JB Kim Changsoo C Kim Jun J Joung Boyoung B

The Korean journal of internal medicine 20190425 1

<h4>Background/aims</h4>Efforts to reduce stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have focused on increasing physician adherence to oral anticoagulant (OAC) guidelines; however, the high early discontinuation rate of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) is a limitation. Although non-VKA OACs (NOACs) are more convenient to administer than warfarin, their lack of monitoring may predispose patients to nonpersistence. We compared the persistence of NOAC and VKA treatment for AF in real-world practi ...[more]

PMID: 31014064

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionNew target-specific oral anticoagulants may have benefits, such as shorter hospital length of stay, compared to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study aimed to assess, among patients with NVAF, the effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on health care costs in a cohort of rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users.MethodsHealth care claims from the Humana database from 5/2011 to 12/2012 were analyzed. Adult patients newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥2 atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnoses (The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification: 427.31) and without valvular AF were identified. Based on propensity score methods, warfarin patients were matched 1:1 to rivaroxaban patients. Patients were observed up to end of data, end of insurance coverage, death, a switch to another anticoagulant, or treatment nonpersistence. Health care costs [hospitalization, emergency room (ER), outpatient, and pharmacy costs] were evaluated using Lin's method.ResultsMatches were found for all rivaroxaban patients, and characteristics of the matched groups (n = 2253 per group) were well balanced. Estimated mean all-cause and AF-related hospitalization costs were significantly lower for rivaroxaban versus warfarin patients (all-cause: $5411 vs. $7427, P = 0.047; AF-related: $2872 vs. $4147, P = 0.020). Corresponding estimated mean all-cause outpatient visit costs were also significantly lower, but estimated mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher for rivaroxaban patients ($5316 vs. $2620, P < 0.001). Although estimated mean costs of ER visits were higher for rivaroxaban users compared to those of warfarin users, differences were not statistically significant. Including anticoagulant costs, mean overall total all-cause costs were comparable for rivaroxaban versus warfarin users due to cost offset from a reduction in the number and length of hospitalizations and number of outpatient visits ($17,590 vs. $18,676, P = 0.542).ConclusionDespite higher anticoagulant cost, mean overall total all-cause and AF-related cost remains comparable for patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin due to the cost offset from reduced health care resource utilization.

Project description:Dabigatran has been shown to be superior to warfarin for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) but with higher out-of-pocket costs for patients. Although dabigatran has been shown to be cost effective from a societal perspective, cost implications for individual patients and insurers are not well described. We aimed to assess cost perspectives of each payer (Medicare and patient) in relation to administration, monitoring, and adverse outcomes for dabigatran and warfarin in patients with and without prescription drug coverage. Using a Markov model, we performed a decision analysis comparing 2 treatment strategies (dose-adjusted warfarin and dabigatran 150 mg twice daily) in patients 65 years old with NVAF, CHADS2 scores ? 1, and Medicare insurance. Patients have a quality-adjusted life expectancy of 8.998 quality-adjusted life years with warfarin and 9.39 quality-adjusted life years with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. From Medicare's perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing dabigatran with warfarin was $35,311 for patients with Part D coverage and cost saving for patients without coverage. From the patient's perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing dabigatran with warfarin was cost saving for patients with Part D coverage and $63,884 for those without coverage. In patients ? 65 years with NVAF and prescription insurance coverage, dabigatran 150 mg twice daily is both cost effective (Medicare's perspective) and cost saving (patient perspective) compared with warfarin, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000. However, patients without prescription drug coverage have a high out-of-pocket cost burden with dabigatran therapy, leading to a reduction in its cost-effectiveness compared with warfarin therapy. In conclusion, this Markov model suggests that Medicare Part D coverage influences the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran 150 mg daily compared with dose-adjusted warfarin from multiple payer perspectives.

Project description:IntroductionNonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is associated with a substantial economic burden, particularly in patients with comorbid conditions. This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of rivaroxaban and warfarin in patients with NVAF, obesity, and diabetes.MethodsA de-identified healthcare claims database was used to identify adult patients newly initiating rivaroxaban or warfarin and having at least one medical claim with a diagnosis of AF, obesity determined by validated algorithm, and at least one claim with a diagnosis of diabetes or for antidiabetic medication from December 2011 to March 2020. Propensity score matching was used to balance the treatment cohorts on the basis of demographics and baseline characteristics. All-cause and NVAF-related HRU rates and costs were compared between treatments using rate ratios, and mean cost differences were calculated on a per patient per year (PPPY) basis.ResultsA total of 9999 matched pairs of patients with NVAF, obesity, and diabetes were identified in the rivaroxaban and warfarin cohorts. Rate ratios of all-cause HRU were significantly reduced with rivaroxaban versus warfarin in all healthcare settings evaluated, except emergency room visits. The greatest impact was on physician office visits followed by hospital outpatient and inpatient visits. NVAF-related HRU was significantly lower for rivaroxaban versus warfarin in all care settings. Consistent with these findings, the length of hospital stay was significantly reduced by approximately 4 days among all patients for both all-cause and NVAF-related hospitalizations in the rivaroxaban cohort compared with the warfarin cohort. Rivaroxaban was associated with reductions in all-cause total healthcare costs by more than $5000 PPPY and NVAF-related medical costs by approximately $1100 PPPY.ConclusionIn comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban reduced HRU and costs, particularly hospital inpatient and outpatient visits and physician office visits, in patients with NVAF and comorbidities of obesity and diabetes.

Dataset Information

A prospective survey of the persistence of warfarin or NOAC in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a COmparison study of Drugs for symptom control and complication prEvention of Atrial Fibrillation (CODE-AF).

Publications

A prospective survey of the persistence of warfarin or NOAC in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a COmparison study of Drugs for symptom control and complication prEvention of Atrial Fibrillation (CODE-AF).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure