The Cost-Effectiveness of 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Seven Chinese Cities

Objective: This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) among infants in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Chengdu, Karamay, Qingdao, and Suzhou. Methods: A previously published cost-effectiveness model comparing vaccination with PCV13 to no vaccination was localized to the included Chinese cities. A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify age-specific incidence rates for pneumococcal bacteremia, pneumococcal meningitis, pneumonia, and otitis media (AOM). Age-specific direct medical costs of treating the included pneumococcal diseases were taken from the Chinese Health Insurance Association database. The base case analysis evaluated vaccine efficacy using direct effect and indirect effects (DE+ IDE). A subsequent scenario analysis evaluated the model outcomes if only DE was considered. A vaccination rate of 70% was used. The model reported outcomes over a one-year period after it was assumed the vaccine effects had reached a steady state (5–7 years after vaccine introduction) to include the direct and indirect effects of vaccination. Health outcomes were discounted at 5% during the steady-state period. Results: Vaccination with PCV13 was cost-effective in the base case analysis for all included cities with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging from 1145 CNY(Shenzhen) to 15,422 CNY (Qingdao) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. PCV13 was the dominant strategy in Shanghai with lower incremental costs and higher incremental QALYs. PCV13 remained cost-effective in the DE-only analysis with all ICERs falling below a cost-effectiveness threshold of three times GDP per capita in each city. Conclusions: Vaccination with PCV13 was a cost-effective strategy in the analyzed cities for both the DE-only and DE + IDE analyses. PCV13 became very cost-effective when a vaccination rate was reached where IDE is observed.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness of Anticoagulation with Dabigatran, Rivaroxaban and Apixaban in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Across Countries

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v120.21.1164.1164 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 120 (21) ◽

pp. 1164-1164 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Martin Krejczy ◽

Job Harenberg ◽

Svetlana Marx ◽

Konrad Obermann ◽

Martin Wehling

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Markov Model ◽

Case Analysis ◽

Base Case ◽

German Population ◽

Base Case Analysis ◽

Chads2 Score ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Markov Decision Model ◽

The Cost

Abstract Abstract 1164 The three new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) dabigatran 110mg bid and 150mg bid, investigated in the RE-LY trial, rivaroxaban 20mg od of the ROCKET trial, and apixaban 5mg bid of the ARISTOTLE trial showed equivalent or superior efficacy and safety compared to warfarin in these patients. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis for these NOACs in Germany and compared the quality of life (QALY), incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER), and total costs across those countries form where these data are published. The base case population was a hypothetical cohort of patients 65 years or older with AF who were at increased risk for stroke (CHADS2-score >1) and had no contraindications to anticoagulation. The time horizon was based on the life expectancy of the German population. The QALYs, health insurance costs, and ICER for the NOACs compared with warfarin were calculated for each study. The sensitivity analysis was performed for different base case prices. The Markov decision model was adopted using the TreeAge Pro 2011 program. The data of the outcomes of ischemic stroke and cerebral embolism, major and intracerebral haemorrhage, myocardial infarction, and mortality were taken from the 3 studies comparing the NOAC with INR-adjusted warfarin. Prices for clinical events and for outpatient care were taken from the institute for payment regulations in German hospitals (InEK). The base-case analysis of a 65 years old person with a >2 CHADS2 score using the data from the RE-LY study resulted in 11.41 QALYs for warfarin, 11.53 QALYs for dabigatran 110mg bid, 11.66 QALYs for dabigatran 150 mg bid. ICERs per QALY were 49640€ for dabigatran 110 mg bid and 49590€ for dabigatran 150 mg bid versus warfarin. The same base-case analysis using the data from the ROCKET AF study resulted in 10.79 QALYs for warfarin versus 11.05 QALYs for rivaroxaban. ICERs per QALY were 48980€ for rivaroxaban versus warfarin. The base-case analysis using the data from the ARISTOTLE study resulted and 11.04 QALYs for warfarin versus 11.38 QALYs for apixaban. ICERs per QALY were 49720€ for apixaban versus warfarin. According the Markov Model the daily value based daily prices were 1.25€ for dabigatran 110 mg bid, 2.50€ for dabigatran 150 mg bid, 2.60€ for rivaroxaban, and 3.10€ for apixaban in Germany. The model was highly sensitive to the daily costs for the NOACs but relatively insensitive to other model inputs. Calculating the range of NOAC prices from 0.2 to 10 Euro versus the ICERs dabigatran 110 mg bid produced the highest increase of ICERs over this range of daily costs (Tukey-Kramer test, p<0.05) Comparing these data across countries using the published data shows that the willingness to pay per QALY as well as differences in treatment costs between substantially influences the daily prices of the NOACs. The data demonstrate the necessity to analyse the cost-effectiveness separately for every study due to differences in the INR-adjusted warfarin treated control group. The better the outcome during treatment with warfarin the lower is the benefit of the NOAC. The tendency of the cost-effectiveness calculated by the Markov model is comparable across countries. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Download Full-text

Cost-utility of two minimally-invasive surgical techniques for operable oropharyngeal cancer: Transoral robotic surgery versus transoral laser microsurgery

10.1101/2020.12.30.20249018 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Enea Parimbelli ◽

Federico Soldati ◽

Lorry Duchoud ◽

Gian Luca Armas ◽

John R. de Almeida ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adjuvant Treatment ◽

Case Analysis ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Transoral Robotic Surgery ◽

Base Case ◽

Base Case Analysis ◽

Hospital Perspective ◽

Decision Analytical Model ◽

The Cost

AbstractImportanceTransoral robotic surgery (TORS) and transoral laser micro-surgery (TLM) are two different but competing minimally invasive techniques to surgically remove operable oropharyngeal squamous cell cancers (OPSCC). As of now, no comparative analysis as to the cost-utility of these techniques exists.ObjectiveRecent population-level data suggest for TORS and TLM equivalent tumor control, but different total costs, need for adjuvant chemoradiation, and learning curves. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare TORS and TLM from the cost-utility (C/U) point of view using a decision-analytical model from a Swiss hospital perspective.DesignOur decision-analytical model combines decision trees and a Markov model to compare TORS and TLM strategies. Model parameters were quantified using available literature, original cost data from two Swiss university tertiary referral centers, and utilities elicited directly from a Swiss population sample using standard gamble. C/U and sensitivity analyses were used to generate results and gauge model robustness.SettingSwiss hospital perspectiveInterventionCost-utility analysisMain outcome measureComparative cost-utility data from TLM and TORSResultsIn the base case analysis TLM dominates TORS. This advantage remains robust, even if the costs for TORS would reduce by up to 25%. TORS begins to dominate TLM, if less than 59,7% patients require adjuvant treatment (pTorsAlone>0.407), whereby in an interval between 55%-62% (pTorsAlone 0.38-0.45) cost effectiveness of TORS is sensitive to the prescription of adjuvant CRT. Also, exceeding 29% of TLM patients requiring a re-operation for inadequate margins renders TORS more cost-effective.ConclusionTLM is more cost-effective than TORS. However, this advantage is sensitive to various parameters i.e. the number of re-operations and adjuvant treatment.Key pointsQuestionCompare cost-utility of TORS versus TLMFindingsIn the base case analysis TLM dominates TORS, even if the costs for TORS would reduce by up to 25%. TORS begins to dominate TLM, if less than 59,7% patients require adjuvant treatment, whereby in an interval between 55%-62% cost effectiveness of TORS is sensitive to the prescription of adjuvant CRT. Exceeding 29% of TLM patients requiring a re-operation for inadequate margins renders TORS more cost-effective.MeaningTLM is more cost-effective than TORS. However, this advantage is sensitive to the number of re-operations and adjuvant treatment

Download Full-text

The Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Triptan Therapy in Sweden

Cephalalgia ◽

10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01243.x ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 27 (1) ◽

pp. 54-62 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

J Ramsberg ◽

M Henriksson

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Scientific Literature ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Base Case ◽

Migraine Treatment ◽

Base Case Analysis ◽

Effectiveness Model ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Cost ◽

Substantial Uncertainty

The literature suggests that triptans are cost effective compared with older types of migraine treatment. However, which of the triptans that is most cost effective has not been established. We compared the costs and effects of triptan treatment from a Swedish societal perspective, using evidence from the literature. A probabilistic cost-effectiveness model was constructed to investigate the costs and effects of treating a single attack in a typical migraine patient. The end-point used in the base-case analysis was sustained pain free without any adverse events (SNAE). We searched the scientific literature for meta-analyses reporting the efficacy of oral triptans. All treatments except rizatriptan 10 mg and eletriptan 40 mg were dominated. The incremental cost per SNAE of rizatriptan 10 mg compared with eletriptan 40 mg was approximately €100. There was substantial uncertainty concerning the results, but probabilistic analysis showed that rizatriptan 10 mg and eletriptan 40 mg had the highest probability of being cost-effective.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness analysis of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound ablation for palliation of refractory painful bone metastases

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s0266462320001907 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-7

Author(s):

Matthew D. Bucknor ◽

Frandics P. Chan ◽

Jessica Y. Matuoka ◽

Patti K. Curl ◽

James G. Kahn

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Bone Metastases ◽

Time Horizon ◽

Focused Ultrasound ◽

Case Analysis ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Base Case ◽

Base Case Analysis ◽

Painful Bone Metastases

Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to determine if magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is cost-effective compared with medication, for refractory pain from bone metastases in the United States. Methods We constructed a Markov state transition model using TreeAge Pro software (TreeAge Software, Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA) to model costs, outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of a treatment strategy using MRgFUS for palliative treatment of painful bone metastases compared with a Medication Only strategy (Figure 1). Model transition state probabilities, costs (in 2018 US$), and effectiveness data (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were derived from available literature, local expert opinion, and reimbursement patterns at two U.S. tertiary academic medical centers actively performing MRgFUS. Costs and QALYs, discounted at three percent per year, were accumulated each month over a 24-month time horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results In the base-case analysis, the MRgFUS treatment strategy costs an additional $11,863 over the 2-year time horizon to accumulate additional 0.22 QALYs, equal to a $54,160/QALY ICER, thus making MRgFUS the preferred strategy. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrate that for the base-case analysis, the crossover point at which Medication Only would instead become the preferred strategy is $23,341 per treatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrate that 67 percent of model iterations supported the conclusion of the base case. Conclusions Our model demonstrates that MRgFUS is cost-effective compared with Medication Only for palliation of painful bone metastases for patients with medically refractory metastatic bone pain across a range of sensitivity analyses.

Download Full-text

The Value and Sustainability of Ocrelizumab in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: A Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis

Farmeconomia Health economics and therapeutic pathways ◽

10.7175/fe.v20i1.1435 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Paolo Angelo Cortesi ◽

Damiano Paolicelli ◽

Marco Capobianco ◽

Paolo Cozzolino ◽

Lorenzo Giovanni Mantovani

Keyword(s):

Multiple Sclerosis ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Economic Impact ◽

Impact Analysis ◽

Budget Impact ◽

Case Analysis ◽

Base Case ◽

Base Case Analysis ◽

Effectiveness Analysis ◽

The Cost

INTRODUCTION: The availability of ocrelizumab for the relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) in the Italian markets raised some questions about its economic impact and value compared to the alternative treatment options available.AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of ocrelizumab compared to the most used second line disease modifying therapies (DMTs) in Italy.METHODS: The study was divided in two phases: Phase 1 – based on the development of a decision analytical Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ocrelizumab compared to natalizumab and fingolimod, and Phase 2 – based on the development of a budget impact model to assess the economic impact of ocrelizumab in Italy. Both models used the National Health System perspective; a lifetime horizon was applied in the cost-effectiveness analysis and a 3-year time horizon in the budget impact. The cost-effectiveness analysis results were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as € per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained, the budget impact analysis results were reported as difference in the overall budget (€) between a scenario with and without ocrelizumab.RESULTS: The two analyses reported ocrelizumab as a cost-effective option compared to natalizumab and fingolimod with a positive impact on the overall NHS budget. In the base-case analysis, the ICER was € 2,023 for ocrelizumab compared to fingolimod; while ocrelizumab resulted cost-saving compared to natalizumab. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis results. Further, the use of ocrelizumab was associated to a budget decrease of € 21 million (-2.6%) in a 3-year time horizon.CONCLUSION: The results of our cost-effectiveness and budget impact models reported ocrelizumab as an effective and efficient treatment in patients with relapsing forms of MS who failed a first line DMTs from the Italian NHS perspective.

Download Full-text

First-Line ICI Monotherapies for Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Patients With PD-L1 of at Least 50%: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Frontiers in Pharmacology ◽

10.3389/fphar.2021.788569 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Qiao Liu ◽

Zhen Zhou ◽

Xia Luo ◽

Lidan Yi ◽

Liubao Peng ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Scenario Analysis ◽

Advanced Nsclc ◽

Case Analysis ◽

Base Case ◽

Base Case Analysis ◽

Small Cell Lung ◽

First Line ◽

Nsclc Patients ◽

The Cost

Objective: Three immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), pembrolizumab, atezolizumab and cemiplimab, have been successively approved as first-line treatments for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with programmed cell death ligand 1(PD-L1) expression of at least 50%. This study was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of these three novel therapies in this patient population.Material and Methods: Using Markov model and network meta-analysis, we conducted separate cost-effectiveness analyses for cemiplimab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab among advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% from the United States health care sector perspective. Health states included progression-free survival, progressive disease, end-stage disease, and death. Clinical efficacy and safety data were derived from phase III clinical trials and health state utilities and costs data were collected from published resources. Two scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of varying subsequent anticancer therapies on the cost-effectiveness of these 3 ICIs and cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy versus these 3 first-line ICI monotherapies.Results: In base case analysis, cemiplimab compared with pembrolizumab was associated with a gain of 0.44 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and an increased cost of $23,084, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $52,998/QALY; cemiplimab compared with atezolizumab was associated with a gain of 0.13 QALYs and a decreased cost of $104,642, resulting in its dominance of atezolizumab. The first scenario analysis yielded similar results as our base case analysis. The second scenario analysis founded the ICERs for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy were $393,359/QALY, $190,994/QALY and $33,230/QALY, respectively, compared with cemiplimab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab.Conclusion: For advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 of at least 50%, cemiplimab was a cost-effective option compared with pembrolizumab and a dominant alternative against atezolizumab. Our scenario analysis results supported the cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as a second-line therapy and suggested an extended QALY but overwhelming cost linking to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy.

Download Full-text

Extended Treatment with Apixaban for Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Netherlands: Clinical and Economic Effects

TH Open ◽

10.1055/s-0038-1672185 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 02 (03) ◽

pp. e315-e324

Author(s):

Lisa de Jong ◽

Judith Gout-Zwart ◽

Jelena Stevanovic ◽

Harrie Rila ◽

Mike Koops ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Venous Thromboembolism ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

The Netherlands ◽

Case Analysis ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Economic Effects ◽

Base Case ◽

Base Case Analysis ◽

Extended Treatment ◽

Recurrent Vte

Background Dutch guidelines advise extended anticoagulant treatment with direct oral anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists for patients with idiopathic venous thromboembolism (VTE) who do not have high bleeding risk. Objectives The aim of this study was to analyze the economic effects of extended treatment of apixaban in the Netherlands, based on an updated and adapted previously published model. Methods We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis simulating a population of 1,000 VTE patients. The base-case analysis compared extended apixaban treatment to no treatment after the first 6 months. Five additional scenarios were conducted to evaluate the effect of different bleeding risks and health care payers' perspective. The primary outcome of the model is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in costs (€) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with one QALY defined as 1 year in perfect health. To account for any influence of the uncertainties in the model, probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted. The treatment was considered cost-effective with an ICER less than €20,000/QALY, which is the most commonly used willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for preventive drugs in the Netherlands. Results The model showed a reduction in recurrent VTE and no increase in major bleeding events for extended treatment in all scenarios. The base-case analysis showed an ICER of €9,653/QALY. The probability of being cost-effective for apixaban in the base-case was 70.0% and 91.4% at a WTP threshold of €20,000/QALY and €50,000/QALY, respectively. Conclusion Extended treatment with apixaban is cost-effective for the prevention of recurrent VTE in Dutch patients.

Download Full-text

Cytomegalovirus Screening in Pregnancy: A Cost-Effectiveness and Threshold Analysis

American Journal of Perinatology ◽

10.1055/s-0038-1676495 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (07) ◽

pp. 678-687 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Catherine M. Albright ◽

Erika F. Werner ◽

Brenna L. Hughes

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Behavioral Intervention ◽

Universal Screening ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Base Case ◽

Design Decision ◽

Intervention Effectiveness ◽

Behavioral Counseling ◽

The Cost ◽

In Pregnancy

Objective To determine threshold cytomegalovirus (CMV) infectious rates and treatment effectiveness to make universal prenatal CMV screening cost-effective. Study Design Decision analysis comparing cost-effectiveness of two strategies for the prevention and treatment of congenital CMV: universal prenatal serum screening and routine, risk-based screening. The base case assumptions were a probability of primary CMV of 1% in seronegative women, hyperimmune globulin (HIG) effectiveness of 0%, and behavioral intervention effectiveness of 85%. Screen-positive women received monthly HIG and screen-negative women received behavioral counseling to decrease CMV seroconversion. The primary outcome was the cost per maternal quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY. Results In the base case, universal screening is cost-effective, costing $84,773 per maternal QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, universal screening is cost-effective only at a primary CMV incidence of more than 0.89% and behavioral intervention effectiveness of more than 75%. If HIG is 30% effective, primary CMV incidence can be 0.82% for universal screening to be cost-effective. Conclusion The cost-effectiveness of universal maternal screening for CMV is highly dependent on the incidence of primary CMV in pregnancy. If efficacious, HIG and behavioral counseling allow universal screening to be cost-effective at lower primary CMV rates.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of home versus hospital management of children at onset of type 1 diabetes: the DECIDE randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043523 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (5) ◽

pp. e043523

Author(s):

Zoe McCarroll ◽

Julia Townson ◽

Timothy Pickles ◽

John W Gregory ◽

Rebecca Playle ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Type 1 Diabetes ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Case Analysis ◽

Base Case ◽

Base Case Analysis ◽

Home Management ◽

Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveThe aim of this economic evaluation was to assess whether home management could represent a cost-effective strategy in the patient pathway of type 1 diabetes (T1D). This is based on the Delivering Early Care In Diabetes Evaluation trial (ISRCTN78114042), which compared home versus hospital management from diagnosis in childhood diabetes and found no statistically significant difference in glycaemic control at 24 months.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.SettingEight paediatric diabetes centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.Participants203 clinically well children aged under 17 years, with newly diagnosed T1D and their carers.Outcome measuresThe base-case analysis adopted n National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A scenario analysis assessed costs from a broader societal perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per mmol/mol reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), was based on the mean difference in costs between the home and hospital groups, divided by mean differences in effectiveness (HbA1c). Uncertainty was considered in terms of the probability of cost-effectiveness.ResultsAt 24 months postintervention, the base-case analysis showed a difference in costs between home and hospital, in favour of home management (mean difference −£2,217; 95% CI −£2825 to −£1,609; p<0.001). Home care dominated, with an ICER of £7434 (saved) per mmol/mol reduction of HbA1c. The results of the scenario analysis also favoured home management. The greatest driver of cost differences was hospitalisation during the initiation period.ConclusionsHome management from diagnosis of children with T1D who are medically stable represents a less costly approach for the NHS in the UK, without impacting clinical effectiveness.Trial registration numberISRCTN78114042.

Download Full-text

Abstract 200: Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes ◽

10.1161/circoutcomes.6.suppl_1.a200 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 6 (suppl_1) ◽

Author(s):

Brendan L Limone ◽

William L Baker ◽

Craig I Coleman

Keyword(s):

Atrial Fibrillation ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Stroke Prevention ◽

Indirect Comparison ◽

Cost Effective ◽

The United States ◽

Base Case ◽

Treatment Comparison ◽

Newer Anticoagulants ◽

The Cost

Background: A number of new anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (SPAF) have gained regulatory approval or are in late-stage development. We sought to conduct a systematic review of economic models of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for SPAF. Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database along with the Tuft’s Registry through October 10, 2012. Included models assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran (150mg, 110mg, sequential), rivaroxaban or apixaban for SPAF using a Markov model or discrete event simulation and were published in English. Results: Eighteen models were identified. All models utilized a lone randomized trial (or an indirect comparison utilizing a single study for any given direct comparison), and these trials were clinically and methodologically heterogeneous. Dabigatran 150mg was assessed in 9 of models, dabigatran 110mg in 8, sequential dabigatran in 9, rivaroxaban in 4 and apixaban in 4. Adjusted-dose warfarin (either trial-like, real-world prescribing or genotype-dosed) was a potential first-line therapy in 94% of models. Models were conducted from the perspective of the United States (44%), European countries (39%) and Canada (17%). In base-case analyses, patients typically were at moderate-risk of ischemic stroke, initiated anticoagulation between 65 and 73 years of age, and were followed for or near a lifetime. All models reported cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and while 22% of models reported using a societal perspective, no model included costs of lost productivity. Four models reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a newer anticoagulant (dabigatran 110mg (n=4)/150mg (n=2); rivaroxaban (n=1)) vs. warfarin above commonly reported willingness-to-pay thresholds. ICERs (in 2012US$) vs. warfarin ranged from $3,547-$86,000 for dabigatran 150mg, $20,713-$150,000 for dabigatran 110mg, $4,084-$21,466 for sequentially-dosed dabigatran and $23,065-$57,470 for rivaroxaban. In addition, apixaban was demonstrated to be an economically dominant strategy compared to aspirin and to be dominant or cost-effective ($11,400-$25,059) vs. warfarin. Based on separate indirect treatment comparison meta-analyses, 3 models compared the cost-effectiveness of these new agents and reported conflicting results. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness models of newer anticoagulants for SPAF have been extensively published. Models have frequently found newer anticoagulants to be cost-effective, but due to the lack of head-to-head trial comparisons and heterogeneity in clinical characteristic of underlying trials and modeling methods, it is currently unclear which of these newer agents is most cost-effective.

Download Full-text