RESUMO
AIMS: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has been demonstrated to be cost-saving relative to oral anticoagulants for stroke prophylaxis in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the United States and Europe. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of LAAC with the Watchman device relative to warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke risk reduction in NVAF from a Japanese public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with 70-year-old patients using a lifetime time horizon. LAAC clinical inputs were from pooled, 5-year PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trials; warfarin and DOAC inputs were from published meta-analyses. Baseline stroke and bleeding risks were from the SALUTE trial on LAAC. Cost inputs were from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over the lifetime time horizon, LAAC was less costly than warfarin (savings of JPY 1,878,335, equivalent to US $17,600) and DOACs (savings of JPY 1,198,096, equivalent to US $11,226). LAAC also provided 1.500 more incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than warfarin and 0.996 more than DOACs. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, LAAC was cost-effective relative to warfarin and DOACs in 99.98% and 99.73% of simulations, respectively. LAAC dominated (had higher cumulative QALYs and was less costly than) warfarin and DOACs in 89.94% and 83.35% of simulations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over a lifetime time horizon, LAAC is cost-saving relative to warfarin and DOACs for stroke risk reduction in NVAF patients in Japan and is associated with improved quality-of-life.
This study examined the cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) compared to oral anticoagulants for stroke risk reduction among individuals with a specific type of irregular heart rhythm called non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of LAAC using the Watchman device in comparison to warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) from the perspective of Japan's public healthcare system. To investigate this, a computer-based model was developed involving 70-year-old patients over their lifetime. Data from notable studies such as the PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trials (covering 5 years) for LAAC and published meta-analyses for warfarin and DOACs were incorporated into the model. Baseline stroke and bleeding risks were derived from the SALUTE trial on LAAC. Cost inputs were based on data from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Additionally, we performed thorough cost-effectiveness analyses, including probabilistic and one-way sensitivity assessments. Our findings revealed that, over a lifetime, LAAC was more cost-effective than both warfarin and DOACs. Further, LAAC contributed an additional 1.500 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to warfarin and 0.996 QALYs compared to DOACs. In the long-term, adopting LAAC as an alternative to warfarin and DOACs is a cost-effective strategy for reducing stroke risk in NVAF patients in Japan. Moreover, it is associated with enhanced quality-of-life. These findings hold significant implications for informing decision-making in healthcare policies and clinical practices for NVAF patients.