scholarly journals Economic evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2020-111634
Author(s):  
Rini Noviyani ◽  
Sitaporn Youngkong ◽  
Surakit Nathisuwan ◽  
Bhavani Shankara Bagepally ◽  
Usa Chaikledkaew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Risk Of Bias

ObjectivesTo assess cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) by pooling incremental net benefits (INBs).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingWe searched PubMed, Scopus and Centre for Evaluation of Value and Risks in Health Registry from inception to December 2019.ParticipantsPatients with AF.Main outcome measuresThe INB was defined as a difference of incremental effectiveness multiplied by willing to pay threshold minus the incremental cost; a positive INB indicated favour treatment. These INBs were pooled (stratified by level of country income, perspective, time-horizon, model types) with a random-effects model if heterogeneity existed, otherwise a fixed effects model was applied. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I2 statistic. Risk of bias was assessed using the economic evaluations bias (ECOBIAS) checklist.ResultsA total of 100 eligible economic evaluation studies (224 comparisons) were included. For high-income countries (HICs) from a third-party payer (TPP) perspective, the pooled INBs for DOAC versus VKA pairs were significantly cost-effective with INBs (95% CI) of $6632 ($2961.67 to $10 303.72; I2=59.9%), $6353.24 ($4076.03 to $8630.45; I2=0%), $7664.58 ($2979.79 to $12 349.37; I2=0%) and $8573.07 ($1877.05 to $15 269.09; I2=0%) for dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban and edoxaban relative to VKA, respectively but only dabigatran was significantly cost-effective from societal perspective (SP) with an INB of $11 746.96 ($2429.34 to $21 064.59; I2=52.4%). The pooled INBs of all comparisons for upper-middle income countries (UMICs) were not significantly cost-effective. The ECOBIAS checklist indicated that risk of bias was mostly low for most items with the exception of five items which should be less influenced on pooling INBs.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis provides comprehensive economic evidence that allows policy makers to generalise cost-effectiveness data to their local context. All DOACs may be cost-effective compared with VKA in HICs with TPP perspective. The pooling results produced moderate to high heterogeneity particularly in UMICs. Further studies are required to inform UMICs with SP.PROSPERO registeration numberCRD 42019146610.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Vs. Vitamin K Antagonists in the Elderly With Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From the Evidence in a Real-World Setting

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yue Wu ◽  
Chi Zhang ◽  
Zhi-Chun Gu
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Real World ◽  
Treatment Strategy ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Cost

Background: In the clinical setting, the economic benefits of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remain unclear. This study aimed to estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; warfarin) in preventing stroke among AF patients aged >75 years in real-world practice.Methods: A Markov model with a 10-year span was constructed to estimate the long-term clinical and economic outcomes among AF patients aged >75 years treated with DOACs and warfarin. The study was populated with a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 AF patients aged >75 years. Probabilities of clinical outcomes were obtained from the pooled observational studies (OSs), comparing DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) with VKAs. Other model inputs, including the utilities and the costs, were all estimated from public sources and the published literature. The costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QAYLs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated for each treatment strategy. Subgroup analyses of individual DOACs and the scenario analysis were performed. Uncertainty was evaluated by deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).Results: Compared to warfarin, DOACs were associated with a gain of 0.36 QALY at an additional cost of $15,234.65, resulting in an ICER of $42,318.47 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the ICER was sensitive to the cost of DOACs. Direct oral anticoagulants also shifted from dominating to dominated status When their annual costs of DOACs were over $3,802.84 or the risk ratio of death compared to warfarin was over 1.077%/year. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) suggested that DOACs had a 53.83 and 90.7% probability of being cost-effective when the willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50,000 and $100,000, respectively. Among all the four individual DOACs, edoxaban treatment was revealed as the preferred treatment strategy for the AF patients aged over 75 years by yielding the most significant health gain with the relatively low total cost.Conclusions: Despite the high risk for major bleeding in elderly patients with AF, DOACs are more cost-effective treatment options than warfarin in real-world practice. Edoxaban was the preferred treatment strategy among four kinds of DOACs for AF patients aged over 75 years. Furthermore, beyond their safety profiles, the treatment benefits of DOACs assumed greater relevance and importance in older adults.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document