The Cost Implications of Dabigatran in Patients with Myocardial Injury After Non-Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Management of Myocardial Injury after Non-Cardiac Surgery (MANAGE) trial demonstrated that dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was more effective than placebo in preventing the primary composite outcome of vascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-hemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, amputation and symptomatic venous thromboembolism in patients with myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS). The cost implications of dabigatran for this population are unknown but are important given the significant clinical implications. METHODS: Hospitalized events, procedures, and study and non-study medications were documented. We applied Canadian unit costs to healthcare resources consumed for all patients in the trial, and calculated the average cost per patient in Canadian dollars for the duration of the study (median follow-up of 16 months). A sensitivity analysis was performed using only Canadian patients, and subgroup analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: The total study cost for the dabigatran group was $9985 per patient, compared with $10,082 for placebo, a difference of - $97 (95% confidence interval [CI] - $2128 to $3672). Savings arising from fewer clinical events and procedures in the dabigatran 110 mg twice-daily group were enough to offset the cost of the study drug. In Canadian patients, the difference was $250 (95% CI -$2848 to $4840). Both differences were considered cost neutral. Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was cost saving or cost neutral in many subgroups that were considered. CONCLUSION: Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was cost neutral for patients in the MANAGE trial. Our cost findings support the use of dabigatran 110 mg twice daily in patients with MINS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number NCT01661101.

Burden of oral anticoagulation in embolic stroke of undetermined source without atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: Prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is challenging. The advent of safer anticoagulation in the form of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has prompted exploration of prophylactic anticoagulation for all ESUS patients, rather than anticoagulating just those with documented atrial fibrillation (AF). However, recent trials have failed to demonstrate a clinical benefit, while observing increased bleeding. We modeled the economic impact of anticoagulating ESUS patients without documented AF across multiple geographies. METHODS: CRYSTAL-AF trial data were used to assess ischaemic stroke event rates in ESUS patients confirmed AF-free after long-term monitoring. Anticipated bleeding event rates (including both minor and major bleeds) with aspirin, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg were sourced from published meta-analyses, whilst a 30% ischaemic stroke reduction for both DOACs was assumed. Cost data for clinical events and pharmaceuticals were collected from the local payer perspective. RESULTS: Compared with aspirin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban resulted in 17.9 and 29.9 additional bleeding events per 100 patients over a patient's lifetime, respectively. Despite incorporating into our model the proposed 30% reduction in ischaemic stroke risk, both DOACs were cost-additive over patient lifetime, as the costs of bleeding events and pharmaceuticals outweighed cost savings associated with the reduction in ischaemic strokes. DOACs added £5953-£7018 per patient (UK), €6683-€7368 (Netherlands), €4933-€9378 (Spain), AUD$5353-6539 (Australia) and $26,768-$32,259 (US) of payer cost depending on the agent prescribed. Additionally, in the U.S. patient pharmacy co-payments ranged from $2468-$12,844 depending on agent and patient plan. In all settings, cost-savings could not be demonstrated even when the modelling assumed 100% protection from recurrent ischaemic strokes, due to the very low underlying risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in this population (1.27 per 100 patient-years). CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation of non-AF patients may cause excess bleeds and add substantial costs for uncertain benefits, suggesting a personalised approach to anticoagulation in ESUS patients.

Non-warfarin oral anticoagulant copayments and adherence in atrial fibrillation: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atrial fibrillation, incomplete adherence to anticoagulants increases risk of stroke. Non-warfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are expensive; we evaluated whether higher copayments are associated with lower NOAC adherence. METHODS: Using a national claims database of commercially-insured patients, we performed a cohort study of patients with atrial fibrillation who newly initiated a NOAC from 2012 to 2018. Patients were stratified into low (<$35), medium ($35-$59), or high (≥$60) copayments and propensity-score weighted based on demographics, insurance characteristics, comorbidities, prior health care utilization, calendar year, and the NOAC received. Follow-up was 1 year, with censoring for switching to a different anticoagulant, undergoing an ablation procedure, disenrolling from the insurance plan, or death. The primary outcome was adherence, measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Secondary outcomes included NOAC discontinuation (no refill for 30 days after the end of NOAC supply) and switching anticoagulants. We compared PDC using a Kruskal-Wallis test and rates of discontinuation and switching using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: After weighting patients across the 3 copayment groups, the effective sample size was 17,558 patients, with balance across 50 clinical and demographic covariates (standardized differences <0.1). Mean age was 62 years, 29% of patients were female, and apixaban (43%), and rivaroxaban (38%) were the most common NOACs. Higher copayments were associated with lower adherence (P < .001), with a PDC of 0.82 (Interquartile range [IQR] 0.36-0.98) among those with high copayments, 0.85 (IQR 0.41-0.98) among those with medium copayments, and 0.88 (IQR 0.41-0.99) among those with low copayments. Compared to patients with low copayments, patients with high copayments had higher rates of discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.19; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among atrial fibrillation patients newly initiating NOACs, higher copayments in commercial insurance were associated with lower adherence and higher rates of discontinuation in the first year. Policies to lower or limit cost-sharing of important medications may lead to improved adherence and better outcomes among patients receiving NOACs.

Cost-effectiveness of antithrombotic agents for atrial fibrillation in older adults at risk for falls: a mathematical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic drugs decrease stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation, but they increase bleeding risk, particularly in older adults at high risk for falls. We aimed to determine the most cost-effective antithrombotic therapy in older adults with atrial fibrillation who are at high risk for falls. METHODS: We conducted a mathematical modelling study from July 2019 to March 2020 based on the Ontario, Canada, health care system. We derived the base-case age, sex and fall risk distribution from a published cohort of older adults at risk for falls, and the bleeding and stroke risk parameters from an atrial fibrillation trial population. Using a probabilistic microsimulation Markov decision model, we calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and edoxaban. Cost data were adjusted for inflation to 2018 values. The analysis used the Ontario public payer perspective with a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: In our model, the most cost-effective antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation in older patients at risk for falls was apixaban, with an ICER of $8517 per QALY gained (5.86 QALYs at $92 056) over ASA. It was a dominant strategy over warfarin and the other antithrombotic agents. There was moderate uncertainty in cost-effectiveness ranking, with apixaban as the preferred choice in 66% of model iterations (given willingness to pay of $50 000 per QALY gained); edoxaban, 30 mg, was preferred in 31% of iterations. Sensitivity analysis across ranges of age, bleeding risk and fall risk still favoured apixaban over the other medications. INTERPRETATION: From a public payer perspective, apixaban is the most cost-effective antithrombotic agent in older adults at high risk for falls. Health care funders should implement strategies to encourage use of the most cost-effective medication in this population.

Predicting Cost-Effectiveness of Generic vs. Brand Dabigatran Using Pharmacometric Estimates Among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in the United States.

Generic entry of newer anticoagulants is expected to decrease the costs of atrial fibrillation management. However, when making switches between brand and generic medications, bioequivalence concerns are possible. The objectives of this study were to predict and compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of brand dabigatran with hypothetical future generics. Markov microsimulations were modified to predict the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years of patients on either brand or generic dabigatran from a US private payer perspective. Event rates for generics were predicted using previously developed pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models. The analyses showed that generic dabigatran with lower-than-brand systemic exposure were dominant. Meanwhile, generic dabigatran with extremely high systemic exposure was not cost-effective compared with the brand reference. Cost-effectiveness of generic medications cannot always be assumed as shown in this example. Combined use of pharmacometric and pharmacoeconomic models can assist in decision making between brand and generic pharmacotherapies.

Cost-effectiveness of Dabigatran Compared With Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Stroke and Systemic Embolism in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation in China.

PURPOSE: In China, dabigatran and rivaroxaban are the only approved non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). The goal of this article was to assess the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in Chinese patients with AF from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban. Clinical events were modeled for a lifetime horizon, based on clinical efficacy data from indirect treatment comparisons. The weighted average of the most recent prices of these 2 drugs was used as the drug acquisition cost. Other costs, including follow-up costs and event costs, were collected by using a survey from a panel of local experts. Utility inputs (health state utilities, clinical event disutilities, and event history utility) were obtained from published literature. Sensitivity analyses that included scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to examine the robustness of the economic model. FINDINGS: Over a lifetime, patients treated with dabigatran experienced fewer ischemic strokes (2.14 dabigatran vs 2.61 rivaroxaban) and fewer intracranial hemorrhage (0.48 vs 0.94) per 100 patient-years. In the base case analysis, dabigatran had an incremental cost of ¥28,128 but with higher life years (10.38 vs 10.14) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (7.95 vs 7.70). The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥112,910 per QALY gained and net monetary benefit of ¥12,214 versus rivaroxaban showed that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to rivaroxaban. Extensive sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust over a wide range of inputs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that dabigatran was cost-effective in 84.2% of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations compared with rivaroxaban. IMPLICATIONS: Dabigatran reduced the occurrence of clinical events and increased QALYs compared with rivaroxaban. The use of dabigatran for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism is a cost-effective option compared with rivaroxaban among patients with AF in China.

Total costs of treating venous thromboembolism: implication of different cost perspectives in a Danish setting.

Aim: Optimal use of scarce resources is a focus in the healthcare sector, as resources devoted to health care are limited. Costs and health economic analyses can help guide decision-making concerning treatments. One important factor is the choice of cost perspective that can range from a focus on narrow drug budget costs to broader economic perspectives. In the case of treatment with oral anticoagulants in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), encompassing deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, the aim of this cost analysis was to illustrate the differences in costs when applying different cost perspectives.Methods: In a cost analysis, pairwise comparisons of average costs of 6 months standard treatment with either a low molecular weight heparin parenteral anticoagulant (LMWH) and a Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA) versus one of the non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants [NOACs; dabigatran etexilate, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) used in daily clinical practice in Denmark for VTE patients were carried out. Each analysis included the results from five different cost analyses with increasingly broader cost perspectives going from the narrowest "drug cost only" perspective to the broadest "societal" perspective.Results: Focusing on "drug costs only", LMWH/VKA was associated with the lowest costs compared to all NOACs. However, including the economic impact of preventing recurrent VTE and limit bleedings, apixaban and rivaroxaban resulted in slightly lower health care costs than LMWH/VKA. When applying the "societal perspective", the total costs saved with apixaban and rivaroxaban compared to LMWH/VKA further increased, with apixaban having the lowest total costs.Conclusions: The present study's case of oral anticoagulants in VTE treatment illustrated the importance of the cost perspective in the choice of therapy. If decision-making were based on drug costs only, instead of applying a health care sector or societal cost perspective, suboptimal decisions may be likely.

Pharmaceutical industry funding of events for healthcare professionals on non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in Australia: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the nature, frequency and content of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-related events for healthcare professionals sponsored by the manufacturers of the NOACs in Australia. A secondary objective is to compare these data to the rate of dispensing of the NOACs in Australia. DESIGN AND SETTING: This cross-sectional study examined consolidated data from publicly available Australian pharmaceutical industry transparency reports from October 2011 to September 2015 on NOAC-related educational events. Data from April 2011 to June 2016 on NOAC dispensing, subsidised under Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), were obtained from the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics of NOAC-related educational events including costs (in Australian dollars, $A), numbers of events, information on healthcare professional attendees and content of events; and NOAC dispensing rates. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 2797 NOAC-related events, costing manufacturers a total of $A10 578 745. Total expenditure for meals and beverages at all events was $A4 238 962. Events were predominantly attended by general practitioners (42%, 1174/2797), cardiologists (35%, 977/2797) and haematologists (23%, 635/2797). About 48% (1347/2797) of events were held in non-clinical settings, mainly restaurants, bars and cafes. Around 55% (1551/2797) of events consisted of either conferences, meetings or seminars. The analysis of the content presented at two events detected promotion of NOACs for unapproved indications, an emphasis on a favourable benefit/harm profile, and that all speakers had close ties with the manufacturers of the NOACs. Following PBS listings relevant to each NOAC, the numbers of events related to that NOAC and the prescribing of that NOAC increased. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the substantial investment in NOAC-related events made by four pharmaceutical companies had a promotional purpose. Healthcare professionals should seek independent information on newly subsidised medicines from, for example, government agencies or drug bulletins.

[Comparative clinical and economic evaluation of pharmacogenetic testing application for dabigatran in patients with atrial fibrillation].

AIM: To evaluate the clinical and economic feasibility of pharmacogenetic testing (PGT) for dabigataran etexilate administration in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) without valve in comparison with tactics without pharmacogenetic testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The pharmacoeconomic model was done using generalized data from published clinical, epidemiological and clinical - economic studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Application of PGT on the carrier of allelic variant rs2244613 of CES1 gene for adjustment of dabigatrane etexilate dosage in patients with non - valve AF may be more cost - effective strategy for prevention of thromboembolic complications in patients with non - valve AF. Thus, due to the decrease in the number of undesirable drug reactions in the form of minor and major bleedings, the difference in treatment costs in the group with PGT compared to the group with standard pharmacotherapy tactics per 100 patients was 11 827.65 rubles. The expected cost per patient per year for standard treatment was 36 051.35 rubles, while in the group with PGT it was 35 933.07 rubles. The difference was 1182.76 rubles in favor of the pharmacogenetic approach Conclusion. A PGT approach to correct dabigatrane dosage can reduce the cost of pharmacotherapy by reducing the risk of adverse reactions of minor and major bleeding.

Comparison of all-cause, stroke, and bleed-specific healthcare resource utilization among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and newly treated with dabigatran or warfarin.

BACKGROUND: We compared healthcare utilization outcomes and persistence among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients newly treated with dabigatran or warfarin. METHODS: Using a nationwide, US administrative claims database, a retrospective matched-cohort of newly diagnosed NVAF patients (age≥18 years) treated with dabigatran or warfarin (propensity score matched 1:1) in 01/01/2011-12/31/2013 was evaluated. All-cause, stroke-, and bleed-specific per patient per month (PPPM) healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), incidence rate of hospitalization for stroke or bleed, 30-day readmission, and persistence were reported. RESULTS: In total, 18,890 dabigatran patients were matched to corresponding warfarin patients. Compared to warfarin users, dabigatran users PPPM had significantly fewer all-cause hospitalizations (0.04 vs 0.05), total outpatient visits (3.98 vs 5.87), and lower 30-day readmissions (14.5% vs 17.4%, all p < 0.001). Dabigatran users had lower incidence rate for stroke (0.65 vs 1.06) and bleed (1.69 vs 2.20), stroke (0.0006 vs 0.0011, p < 0.001) and bleed-specific hospitalizations (0.002 vs 0.003, p = 0.008), and stroke (0.03 vs 0.04, p < 0.001) and bleed-specific outpatient visits (0.07 vs 0.08, p = 0.018), and significantly lower non-persistence (62.1% vs 66.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among newly diagnosed newly treated NVAF patients, dabigatran users had significantly lower all-cause, stroke- and bleed-specific HCRU, lower risk of hospitalization for stroke or bleed events, lower 30-day readmissions, and higher persistence than warfarin users.

Comparison of stroke- and bleed-related healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation and newly treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin.

BACKGROUND: This is one of the first head-to-head real-world evidence studies comparing stroke-related and bleed-related healthcare and resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating oral anticoagulants. METHODS: Adult NVAF patients newly diagnosed and treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin between 10/01/2010 and 12/31/2014 were identified using MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. Per-patient-per-month stroke and bleed-related HCRU and costs were reported. RESULTS: Dabigatran patients were matched 1:1 to 26,592 rivaroxaban and 33,024 warfarin patients (mean age=68 years). Compared to rivaroxaban, dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related inpatient and outpatient HCRU (0.004 vs. 0.005; 0.099 vs. 0.145) and significantly lower adjusted bleed-related costs ($116 vs. $172), all p <0.05. Compared to warfarin, dabigatran patients had significantly lower stroke-related outpatient visits (0.034 vs. 0.048, p<0.001) and higher bleed-related outpatient visits (0.101 vs. 0.091, p=0.045). Multivariate adjusted bleed-related costs were significantly lower for dabigatran patients than warfarin patients ($94 vs. $138, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related HCRU and costs than rivaroxaban patients, and lower outpatient stroke-related HCRU, higher bleed-related outpatient HCRU, and lower bleed-related costs than warfarin patients. It provides valuable stroke-related and bleed-related HCRU and costs information among commercially insured and Medicare patients.

Anticoagulation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease.

Background and Purpose- Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are safer, at least equally efficacious, and cost-effective compared to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) but they remain underused, particularly in demented patients. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of DOACs compared with warfarin in patients with AF and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods- We constructed a microsimulation model to estimate the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation therapy (adjusted-dose warfarin and various DOACs) in 70-year-old patients with AF and AD from a US societal perspective. We stratified patient cohorts based on stage of AD and care setting. Model parameters were estimated from secondary sources. Health benefits were measured in the number of acute health events, life-years, and QALYs gained. We classified alternatives as cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. Results- For patients with AF and AD, compared with warfarin, DOACs increase costs but also increase QALYs by reducing the risk of stroke. For mild-AD patients living in the community, edoxaban increased lifetime costs by $6603 and increased QALYs by 0.076 compared to warfarin, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86 882/QALY gained. Even though DOACs increased QALYs compared with warfarin for all patient groups (ranging from 0.019 to 0.085 additional QALYs), no DOAC treatment alternative had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$150 000/QALY gained for patients with moderate to severe AD. For patients living in a long-term care facility with mild AD, the DOAC with the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (rivaroxaban) costs $150 169 per QALY gained; for patients with more severe AD, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were higher. Conclusions- For patients with AF and mild AD living in the community, edoxaban is cost-effective compared with warfarin. Even though patients with moderate and severe AD living in the community and patients with any stage of AD living in a long-term care setting may obtain positive clinical benefits from anticoagulation treatment, DOACs are not cost-effective compared with warfarin for these populations. Compared to aspirin, no oral anticoagulation (warfarin or any DOAC) is cost effective in patients with AF and AD.

THE GAP BETWEEN ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS ON DABIGATRAN FOR ATRIAL FIBRILLATION.

OBJECTIVES: As model-based economic evaluations (MBEEs) are widely used to make decisions in the context of policy, it is imperative that they represent clinical practice. Here, we assess the relevance of MBEEs on dabigatran for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We performed a systematic review on the basis of a developed questionnaire, tailored to oral anticoagulation in patients with AF. Included studies had a full body text in English, compared dabigatran with a vitamin K antagonist, were not dedicated to one or more subgroup(s), and yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The relevance of all MBEEs was assessed on the basis of ten context-independent factors, which encompassed clinical outcomes and treatment duration. The MBEEs performed for the United States were assessed on the basis of seventeen context-dependent factors, which were related to the country's target population and clinical environment. RESULTS: The search yielded twenty-nine MBEEs, of which six were performed for the United States. On average, 54 percent of the context-independent factors were included per study, and 37 percent of the seventeen context-dependent factors in the U.S. STUDIES: The share of relevant factors per study did not increase over time. CONCLUSIONS: MBEEs on dabigatran leave out several relevant factors, limiting their usefulness to decision makers. We strongly urge health economic researchers to improve the relevance of their MBEEs by including context-independent relevance factors, and modeling context-dependent factors befitting the decision context concerned.

Target Population of Non-deferrable Surgery and Uncontrolled Severe Bleeding Related to Dabigatran.

PURPOSE: This observational study was aimed to identify patients who experienced non-deferrable surgery and/or uncontrolled severe bleeding following dabigatran administration and then are potentially eligible to the use of the specific antidote idarucizumab in a real-world setting. METHODS: From the big Italian real-world database ARCO, a cohort of adult patients treated with dabigatran and hospitalized due to diagnoses attributable to urgent interventions and/or major bleeding was selected in 2014. Baseline characteristics and all-cause hospitalizations, specialist/diagnostic outpatient services, and healthcare costs over the 1-year follow-up were described. RESULTS: Out of 16,756,843 Italian citizens, 271,540 (1.9%) were prescribed with oral anticoagulants, and specifically, 17,450 with dabigatran. Patients identified to be hospitalized for non-deferrable surgery (n = 106) and/or uncontrolled severe bleeding (n = 190) following dabigatran use were 289 (1.7%) [mean age (± SD) 79 ± 7, 50% of female sex]. On average, patients stayed in hospital 13.7 and 17.0 days, respectively. The per patient and per year cost to the Italian National Health System was on average 19,708€ (specifically 1487€ for drugs, of which 311€ for dabigatran, 17,353€ for all-cause hospitalizations, and 869€ for outpatient care), about four times more than the mean healthcare integrated cost of a single patient treated with dabigatran (4775€). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of the ARCO database reliably describes the population potentially eligible to the dabigatran reversal agent, idarucizumab. These data may be useful for Healthcare Decision Makers to organize, define, and improve present and future emergency healthcare, mainly as starting point for cost-effectiveness analyses of new reversal agents.

Benefit, risk and cost of new oral anticoagulants and warfarin in atrial fibrillation; A multicriteria decision analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Warfarin and new oral anticoagulants are effective in reducing stroke in atrial fibrillation; however, the benefits and risks rates in clinical trials show heterogeneity for each anticoagulant, and is unknown the cost influence on a model considering most of the treatment consequences. We designed a benefit-risk and cost assessment of oral anticoagulants. DESIGN: We followed the roadmap proposed by IMI-PROTECT and the considerations of emerged good practice to perform Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). The roadmap defines the following steps: (1) planning, (2) evidence gathering and data preparation, (3) analyses, (4) explorations, and (5) conclusions. We defined two reference points (0-100) to allocate numerical values for scores and weights, and used an analogue numeric scale to assess physicians' preferences. As benefits of the anticoagulant therapy, we included reductions in stroke and all-cause mortality; intracranial haemorrhage, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, minor bleeding and myocardial infarction were considered risks. We also made an estimation of the annual drug cost per person. MAIN RESULTS: The scores were: Apixaban 33, Dabigatrán 25, warfarin 18 and Rivaroxaban 14 this score reveals the most preferred up to the less preferred option, considering the benefit-risk ratio and drug costs altogether. The relative model weights were: 51.1% for risks, 40.4% for benefits and 8.5% for cost. The sensitivity analysis confirms the model robustness. CONCLUSIONS: From this analysis, apixaban should be considered as the preferred anticoagulant option -due to a better benefit-risk balance and a minor cost influence- followed by dabigatran, warfarin and rivaroxaban.

Comparing the Cost Effectiveness of Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants with Well-Managed Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Patients at High Risk of Bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have compared the cost effectiveness of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin using results from clinical trials evaluating NOACs. However, the time in therapeutic range (TTR) of warfarin groups ranged across clinical trials, and all were below the therapeutic goal of 70%. We compared the cost effectiveness of edoxaban 60 mg, apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, rivaroxaban 20 mg, and well-managed warfarin with a TTR of 70% in preventing stroke among patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk of bleeding. METHODS: For the six treatments, we used a Markov state-transition model to quantify lifetime costs in $US and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We simulated relative risk ratios of clinical events with each NOAC versus warfarin with a TTR of 70% using published regression models that predict how the incidence of thrombotic or hemorrhagic events changes for each unit change in TTR. We re-ran our analysis for two other estimates of TTR: 65 and 75%. RESULTS: Treatment with edoxaban 60 mg cost $US127,520/QALY gained compared with warfarin with a TTR of 70% and cost $US41,860/QALY gained compared with warfarin with a TTR of 65%. However, warfarin with a TTR of 75% was more effective and less expensive than all NOACs. For three levels of TTR, apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg were dominated strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The comparative cost effectiveness of edoxaban and warfarin is highly sensitive to TTR. At the $US100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, our results suggest that warfarin is the most cost-effective treatment for patients who can achieve a TTR of 70%.

Factors influencing dabigatran or warfarin medication persistence in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Factors influencing differences in persistence between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) remain unclear. AIM: Compare differences in persistence between new dabigatran and warfarin users in patients newly diagnosed with NVAF, adjusting for sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, patient out-of-pocket cost and other covariates. METHODS: A retrospective matched-cohort study was conducted using a US claims database of Medicare and commercially insured patients with NVAF aged≥ 18 years. Persistence and monthly out-of-pocket costs for dabigatran or warfarin were calculated and adjusted for covariates using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: Unadjusted persistence was significantly lower among dabigatran users (n = 1025) compared with matched warfarin users (38 vs 46%). Adjusting for covariates rendered this difference insignificant (hazard ratio = 0.930).

Health Care Costs and Utilization of Dabigatran Compared With Warfarin for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Population Study.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether the use of new oral anticoagulants, compared with warfarin, is economically beneficial in Asian countries. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the health care costs and utilization between dabigatran and warfarin in a real-world nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) population. RESEARCH DESIGN: Data were obtained from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database, and patients with an NVAF diagnosis between June 1, 2012, and May 31, 2014, were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code of 427.31. The patients in the dabigatran cohort were matched 1:2 to those in the warfarin cohort by sex, age, residential region, and a propensity score that incorporated a major bleeding history, CHADS2 score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. The all-cause health care utilization and associated costs of the 2 treatment groups were compared at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 1149 patients taking dabigatran were identified and matched with 2298 warfarin users. During the 3-month observation period, the likelihood of having at least 1 hospitalization among dabigatran users was significantly lower than that of warfarin users (odds ratio=0.78; P=0.001). Patients in the dabigatran group incurred lower mean emergency department costs ($2383.1 vs. $3033.6), mean ischemic stroke-related hospitalization costs ($8869.5 vs. $13,990.5), and mean all-cause hospitalization costs ($32,402.2 vs. $50,669.9) at 3 months. However, both the mean and median outpatient costs of warfarin users were consistently lower than those of dabigatran users ($17,161.2 vs. $24,931.4 and $10,509.0 vs. $20,671.5, respectively). Similar trends were observed at 12 months, except that the 2 groups had comparable total health care costs. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dabigatran is associated with lower emergency department and all-cause hospitalization costs but greater outpatient costs in a real-world, NVAF patient population compared with warfarin.

Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Among Newly Diagnosed and Oral Anticoagulant-Naive Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated with Dabigatran or Warfarin in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin has a long history of use to reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but it requires frequent laboratory monitoring to maintain international normalized ratio levels in the therapeutic range. Dabigatran, a novel oral anticoagulant (OAC), has demonstrated efficacy in reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism and does not require laboratory monitoring. OBJECTIVE: To compare health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs of OAC-naive patients newly diagnosed with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), using dabigatran or warfarin. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used data from medical and pharmacy claims extracted from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database representing commercial and Medicare Advantage members. Adults aged > 18 years with a medical diagnosis claim of NVAF were identified between October 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011. The date of first observed OAC prescription claim was the index date. Patients were followed for up to 12 months after the index date. Patients were assigned to the dabigatran or warfarin treatment groups based on their first OAC prescription fills. To reduce potential for selection bias, the cohorts were matched on baseline characteristics using propensity score matching. HCRU was measured and compared between groups on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis for all-cause HCRU, as well as stroke, myocardial infarction, and bleed-specific HCRU. Pharmacy, medical, and total costs were also compared and adjusted to 2012 U.S. dollars. Generalized linear models were conducted to compare all-cause health care costs between cohorts. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 1,648 patients were included in the analysis (824 each in the dabigatran and warfarin treatment groups). In the post-index period, patients in the dabigatran group had significantly fewer all-cause PPPM physician office visits (mean [SD] 1.29 [± 0.95] vs. 2.02 [± 1.53], P < 0.001) and outpatient visits (mean [SD] 2.17 [± 2.90] vs. 3.52 [± 3.32], P < 0.001) compared with those in the warfarin group. There were no between-group differences in outcomes for the number of stroke, myocardial infarction, or bleeding-related office visits. All-cause medical costs for the dabigatran cohort were lower than the warfarin cohort; however, the difference did not reach statistical significance ($2,696 [SD ± $6,699] vs. $2,893 [± $6,819], P = 0.179). All-cause pharmacy costs were higher in the dabigatran group versus the warfarin group ($455 [± $429] vs. $328 [± $517], P < 0.001). The dabigatran cohort also had significantly higher stroke-related ($32 [± $71] vs. $20 [± $55], P = 0.006) and nonstroke-related pharmacy costs ($423 [± $422] vs. $308 [± $515], P < 0.001). Despite higher pharmacy costs for the dabigatran cohort, both treatment groups had statistically similar all-cause total costs ($3,151 [± $6,744] vs. $3,221 [± $6,869], P = 0.701). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study showed that among patients newly diagnosed with NVAF who were OAC naive, dabigatran use was associated with significantly less HCRU in terms of physician and outpatient visits but higher pharmaceutical costs in up to 12 months of follow-up. Similar to other real-world studies, this research supports the finding that higher pharmacy costs for dabigatran users was offset by lower medical costs, making total health care costs comparable between dabigatran and warfarin. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, which is the manufacturer of dabigatran, one of the products included in the analysis of this work. The authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions. Jain and Tan are employed by HealthCore, a research consultancy which was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals for work on this study. Fu was employed by HealthCore at the time of this study. Lim, Wang, Elder, and Sander are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Study concept and design were contributed by Wang, Sander, and Tan, along with Fu and Jain. Fu, Tan, and Jain collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Lim, Wang, and Sander, along with Jain, Tan, and Fu. The manuscript was written by Jain, Elder, Tan, and Wang, along with Lim and Fu, and revised by Jain, Wang, Elder, and Tan. Some of the results of this study were presented at Quality of Care and Outcomes Research in Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke (QCOR) 2014 Scientific Sessions on June 2-4, 2014, in Baltimore, Maryland.