Dabigatran versus warfarin under standard or pharmacogenetic-guided management for the prevention of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation: a cost/utility analysis using an analytic decision model.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common form of heart arrhythmia and a leading cause of stroke and systemic embolism. Chronic anticoagulation is recommended for preventing those complications. Our study aimed to compare the cost/utility (CU) of three main anticoagulation options: 1) standard warfarin dosing (SD-W) 2) warfarin dosage under the guidance of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotyping (GT-W) and 3) dabigatran 150 mg twice a day. METHODS: A Markov state transition model was built to simulate the expected C/U of dabigatran, SD-W and GT-W anticoagulation therapy for the prevention of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation over a period of 5 years under the perspective of the public health care system. Model inputs were derived from extensive literature search and government's data bases. Outcomes considered were the number of total major events (thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events), total costs in Canadian dollars (1CAD$ = 1$US), total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs/QALYs and incremental costs/QALYs gained (ICUR). RESULTS: Raw base case results show that SD-W has the lowest C/U ratio. However, the dabigatran option might be considered as an alternative, as its cost per additional QALY gained compared to SD-W is CAD $ 4 765, i.e. less than 50 000, the ICUR threshold generally accepted to adopt an intervention. At the same threshold, GT-W doesn't appear to be an alternative to SD-W. Our results were robust to one-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: SD-W has the lowest C/U ratio among the 3 options. However, dabigatran might be considered as an alternative. GT-W is not C/U and should not currently be recommended for the routine anticoagulotherapy management of AF patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of antiviral treatment in the management of seasonal influenza A: point-of-care rapid test versus clinical judgment.

BACKGROUND: A point-of-care rapid test (POCRT) may help early and targeted use of antiviral drugs for the management of influenza A infection. OBJECTIVE: (i) To determine whether antiviral treatment based on a POCRT for influenza A is cost-effective and, (ii) to determine the thresholds of key test parameters (sensitivity, specificity and cost) at which a POCRT based-strategy appears to be cost effective. METHODS: An hybrid « susceptible, infected, recovered (SIR) ¼ compartmental transmission and Markov decision analytic model was used to simulate the cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment based on a POCRT for influenza A in the social perspective. Data input parameters used were retrieved from peer-review published studies and government databases. The outcome considered was the incremental cost per life-year saved for one seasonal influenza season. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the antiviral treatment based on POCRT saves 2 lives/100,000 person-years and costs $7600 less than the empirical antiviral treatment based on clinical judgment alone, which demonstrates that the POCRT-based strategy is dominant. In one and two way-sensitivity analyses, results were sensitive to the POCRT accuracy and cost, to the vaccination coverage as well as to the prevalence of influenza A. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the POCRT strategy is cost-effective in 66% of cases, for a commonly accepted threshold of $50,000 per life-year saved. CONCLUSION: The influenza antiviral treatment based on POCRT could be cost-effective in specific conditions of performance, price and disease prevalence.

An economic evaluation: Simulation of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of universal prevention strategies against osteoporosis-related fractures.

A patient-level Markov decision model was used to simulate a virtual cohort of 500,000 women 40 years old and over, in relation to osteoporosis-related hip, clinical vertebral, and wrist bone fractures events. Sixteen different screening options of three main scenario groups were compared: (1) the status quo (no specific national prevention program); (2) a universal primary prevention program; and (3) a universal screening and treatment program based on the 10-year absolute risk of fracture. The outcomes measured were total directs costs from the perspective of the public health care system, number of fractures, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results show that an option consisting of a program promoting physical activity and treatment if a fracture occurs is the most cost-effective (CE) (cost/fracture averted) alternative and also the only cost saving one, especially for women 40 to 64 years old. In women who are 65 years and over, bone mineral density (BMD)-based screening and treatment based on the 10-year absolute fracture risk calculated using a Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) tool is the best next alternative. In terms of cost-utility (CU), results were similar. For women less than 65 years old, a program promoting physical activity emerged as cost-saving but BMD-based screening with pharmacological treatment also emerged as an interesting alternative. In conclusion, a program promoting physical activity is the most CE and CU option for women 40 to 64 years old. BMD screening and pharmacological treatment might be considered a reasonable alternative for women 65 years old and over because at a healthcare capacity of $50,000 Canadian dollars ($CAD) for each additional fracture averted or for one QALY gained its probabilities of cost-effectiveness compared to the program promoting physical activity are 63% and 75%, respectively, which could be considered socially acceptable. Consideration of the indirect costs could change these findings.