Cost-Utility Analysis of Dabigatran and Warfarin for Stroke Prevention Among Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation in India.

OBJECTIVES: Dabigatran has a better safety profile and requires less monitoring, but is costlier than warfarin. This study evaluated the cost-utility of dabigatran relative to warfarin for preventing stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in India. METHODS: A Markov decision analysis model was developed to compare dabigatran (110 or 150 mg twice a day) to warfarin titrated to target prothrombin time in patients with NVAF at high risk of stroke. Model utilities and transition probabilities were based on literature and costs on market prices. Data on out-of-pocket expenses and income lost were taken from a nationally representative survey. We adopted a societal perspective and discounted both costs and outcomes at 3%. Ischemic stroke, intracranial bleed, other major bleeds, and death were outcomes of NVAF. The model projected the costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each intervention over a lifetime. We used gross domestic product per capita of India (US dollars [US$]1889) as the cost-effectiveness threshold. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Treatment with either dose of dabigatran was associated with gain in life-years and QALYs compared with warfarin. The discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios/QALYs for both doses of dabigatran (110 mg US$7519; 150 mg US$6634) were above the cost-effectiveness threshold, and the probability of being cost-effective at this threshold was low. Cost of dabigatran was an important factor in determining incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Price reduction of 150 mg dose by 49% will make it cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran is not cost-effective in the Indian societal context. Reducing the price of dabigatran 150 mg by half will make it cost-effective.

Cardiovascular, bleeding, and mortality risks in elderly Medicare patients treated with dabigatran or warfarin for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The comparative safety of dabigatran versus warfarin for treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in general practice settings has not been established. METHODS AND RESULTS: We formed new-user cohorts of propensity score-matched elderly patients enrolled in Medicare who initiated dabigatran or warfarin for treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation between October 2010 and December 2012. Among 134 414 patients with 37 587 person-years of follow-up, there were 2715 primary outcome events. The hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) comparing dabigatran with warfarin (reference) were as follows: ischemic stroke, 0.80 (0.67-0.96); intracranial hemorrhage, 0.34 (0.26-0.46); major gastrointestinal bleeding, 1.28 (1.14-1.44); acute myocardial infarction, 0.92 (0.78-1.08); and death, 0.86 (0.77-0.96). In the subgroup treated with dabigatran 75 mg twice daily, there was no difference in risk compared with warfarin for any outcome except intracranial hemorrhage, in which case dabigatran risk was reduced. Most patients treated with dabigatran 75 mg twice daily appeared not to have severe renal impairment, the intended population for this dose. In the dabigatran 150-mg twice daily subgroup, the magnitude of effect for each outcome was greater than in the combined-dose analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In general practice settings, dabigatran was associated with reduced risk of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and death and increased risk of major gastrointestinal hemorrhage compared with warfarin in elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. These associations were most pronounced in patients treated with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily, whereas the association of 75 mg twice daily with study outcomes was indistinguishable from warfarin except for a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage with dabigatran.

Risk of bleeding with dabigatran in atrial fibrillation.

IMPORTANCE: It remains unclear whether dabigatran etexilate mesylate is associated with higher risk of bleeding than warfarin sodium in real-world clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of bleeding associated with dabigatran and warfarin using Medicare data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used pharmacy and medical claims in 2010 to 2011 from a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries. We identified participants as those newly diagnosed as having atrial fibrillation from October 1, 2010, through October 31, 2011, and who initiated dabigatran or warfarin treatment within 60 days of initial diagnosis. We followed up patients until discontinued use or switch of anticoagulants, death, or December 31, 2011. EXPOSURES: Dabigatran users (n = 1302) and warfarin users (n = 8102). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We identified any bleeding events and categorized them as major and minor bleeding by anatomical site. Major bleeding events included intracranial hemorrhage, hemoperitoneum, and inpatient or emergency department stays for hematuria, gastrointestinal, or other hemorrhage. We used a propensity score weighting mechanism to balance patient characteristics between 2 groups and Cox proportional hazards regression models to evaluate the risk of bleeding. We further examined the risk of bleeding for 4 subgroups of high-risk patients: those 75 years or older, African Americans, those with chronic kidney disease, and those with more than 7 concomitant comorbidities. RESULTS: Dabigatran was associated with a higher risk of bleeding relative to warfarin, with hazard ratios of 1.30 (95% CI, 1.20-1.41) for any bleeding event, 1.58 (95% CI, 1.36-1.83) for major bleeding, and 1.85 (95% CI, 1.64-2.07) for gastrointestinal bleeding. The risk of intracranial hemorrhage was higher among warfarin users, with a hazard ratio of 0.32 (95% CI, 0.20-0.50) for dabigatran compared with warfarin. Dabigatran was consistently associated with an increased risk of major bleeding and gastrointestinal hemorrhage for all subgroups analyzed. The risk of major bleeding among dabigatran users was especially high for African Americans and patients with chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Dabigatran was associated with a higher incidence of major bleeding (regardless of the anatomical site), a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, but a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage. Thus, dabigatran should be prescribed with caution, especially among high-risk patients.

[Doubts about the new oral anticoagulants]. / Vraagtekens bij de nieuwe antistollingsmiddelen: alarmerend signaal over de introductie van NOAC's.

Recently, The British Medical Journal published three articles and an editorial on the RE-LY trial and the admission to the market of dabigatran. In these publications, concerns were raised regarding the data in this key trial and the registration process. Moreover, a lack of transparency was brought to light about the safety of unmonitored dabigatran use. The results of the RE-LY trial were important evidence for an advice of the Health Council of the Netherlands on the introduction of the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in the Netherlands, published in 2012. At present, the question arises whether dabigatran use requires monitoring and what the consequences are for the cost-effectiveness of NOACs.

Novel oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation is the most frequent arrhythmia in clinical practice, reaching 2% of the people in the world and is associated with systemic embolism. Thus, the use of anticoagulants is indicated if CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2 or in patients with previous transient ischemic attack or stroke. For decades, warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist, was the only choice for chronic oral anticoagulation. Recently, novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been introduced, offering similar (or better) effectiveness, safety, and convenience to the vitamin K antagonists. Dabigatran was the first NOAC approved and is a direct thrombin inhibitor. Rivaroxaban and apixaban are factor Xa inhibitors. They display rapid onset of action, more predictable of pharmacological profile, less interactions with other drugs, lack of significant effects in the diet, and less risk of intracranial hemorrhage than warfarin. Despite that dose adjustment is necessary for patients with chronic kidney disease or according to body weight, these new drugs do not require regular monitoring. There are recommendations for the start and follow-up therapy with NOACs, planning for cardioversion, ablation and surgical interventions and the management of bleeding. This article is a review of the major studies of the NOACs. The clinical use of these drugs in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation is presented.

Cost effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in two different European healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to investigate the cost effectiveness of apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran compared with coumarin derivatives for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in a country with specialized anticoagulation clinics (the Netherlands) and in a country without these clinics (the UK). METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was used to analyse the cost effectiveness of apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran compared with coumarin derivatives in the Netherlands and the UK over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: In the Netherlands, the use of rivaroxaban, apixaban, or dabigatran increased health by 0.166, 0.365, and 0.374 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with coumarin derivatives, but also increased costs by 5,681, 4,754, and 5,465, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were 34,248, 13,024, and 14,626 per QALY gained. In the UK, health was increased by 0.302, 0.455, and 0.461 QALYs, and the incremental costs were similar for all three new oral anticoagulants (5,118-5,217). The ICERs varied from 11,172 to 16,949 per QALY gained. In the Netherlands, apixaban had the highest chance (37 %) of being cost effective at a threshold of 20,000; in the UK, this chance was 41 % for dabigatran. The quality of care, reflected in time in therapeutic range, had an important influence on the ICER. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran are cost-effective alternatives to coumarin derivatives in the UK, while in the Netherlands, only apixaban and dabigatran could be considered cost effective. The cost effectiveness of the new oral anticoagulants is largely dependent on the setting and quality of local anticoagulant care facilities.

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Singapore. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to compare the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of dabigatran 110 and 150 mg, rivaroxaban 20 mg and adjusted-dose warfarin from the perspective of the Singapore healthcare system, using clinical data from published studies, utilities from a patient-reported survey and costs from hospital databases. The target population was a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old AF patients with no contraindications to anticoagulation. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the QALYs were 8.75 with warfarin, 8.73 with dabigatran 110 mg, 8.82 with dabigatran 150 mg, and 9.33 with rivaroxaban. The costs were Singapore dollar (SG$) 34,648 for warfarin, SG$54,919 for dabigatran 110 mg, SG$50,484 for dabigatran 150 mg and SG$51,975 for rivaroxaban. The ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was SG$29,697 (US$26,727) per QALY. Rivaroxaban and warfarin had extended dominance over the high-dose dabigatran. The low-dose dabigatran was dominated by warfarin. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was sensitive to cost of rivaroxaban and utilities for rivaroxaban and warfarin. Probability sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of rivaroxaban being the optimal choice was 97.8% and 99.5% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of SG$65,000 (US$58,500) and SG$130,000 (US$117,000) per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban may be a cost-effective alternative to warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF in Singapore.

Identifying future research priorities using value of information analyses: left atrial appendage occlusion devices in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion devices are cost effective for stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation when compared with dabigatran or warfarin. We illustrate the use of value-of-information analyses to quantify the degree and consequences of decisional uncertainty and to identify future research priorities. METHODS AND RESULTS: A microsimulation decision-analytic model compared left atrial appendage occlusion devices to dabigatran or warfarin in atrial fibrillation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis quantified the degree of parameter uncertainty. Expected value of perfect information analyses showed the consequences of this uncertainty. Expected value of partial perfect information analyses were done on sets of input parameters (cost, utilities, and probabilities) to identify the source of the greatest uncertainty. One-way sensitivity analyses identified individual parameters for expected value of partial perfect information analyses. Population expected value of perfect information and expected value of partial perfect information provided an upper bound on the cost of future research. Substantial uncertainty was identified, with left atrial appendage occlusion devices being preferred in only 47% of simulations. The expected value of perfect information was $8542 per patient and $227.3 million at a population level. The expected value of partial perfect information for the set of probability parameters represented the most important source of uncertainty, at $6875. Identified in 1-way sensitivity analyses, the expected value of partial perfect information for the odds ratio for stroke with left atrial appendage occlusion compared with warfarin was calculated at $7312 per patient or $194.5 million at a population level. CONCLUSION: The relative efficacy of stroke reduction with left atrial appendage occlusion devices in relation to warfarin is an important source of uncertainty. Improving estimates of this parameter should be the priority for future research in this area.

Evaluation of medical costs associated with use of new oral anticoagulants compared with standard therapy among venous thromboembolism patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated differences in medical costs associated with clinical end-points from randomized clinical trials that compared the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, to standard therapy for treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Event rates of efficacy and safety end-points from the clinical trials (RE-COVER, RE-COVER II, EINSTEIN-Pooled, AMPLIFY, Hokusai-VTE trial) were obtained from published literature. Incremental annual medical costs among patients with clinical events from a US payer perspective were obtained from the literature or healthcare claims databases and inflation adjusted to 2013 costs. Differences in total medical costs associated with clinical end-points for the NOACs vs standard therapy were then estimated. One-way and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: A lower rate of major bleedings was associated with use of any of the NOACs vs standard therapy. Except for dabigatran, use of NOACs was also associated with a lower rate of recurrent VTE/death. As a result of the reduction in clinical event rates, the overall medical cost differences were -$146, -$482, -$918, and -$344 for VTE patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, respectively, vs patients treated with standard therapy. CONCLUSIONS: When any of the four NOACs are used instead of standard therapy for acute VTE, treatment medical costs are reduced. Apixaban is associated with the greatest reduction in medical costs, which is driven by medical cost reductions associated with both efficacy and safety end-points. Further evaluation may be needed to validate these results in the real-world setting.

Estimated medical cost reductions associated with use of novel oral anticoagulants vs warfarin in a real-world non-valvular atrial fibrillation patient population.

OBJECTIVE: RESULTS of randomized clinical trials (RCT) demonstrate that novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are effective therapies for reducing the risk of stroke in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Prior medical cost avoidance studies have used warfarin event rates from RCTs, which may differ from patients receiving treatment in a real-world (RW) setting, where the quality of care may not be the same as in a RCT. The purpose of this study was to estimate the change in medical costs related to stroke and major bleeding for each NOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivoraxaban) relative to warfarin in a RW NVAF population. METHODS: Patients (n = 23,525) with a diagnosis of NVAF during 2007-2010 were selected from a Medco population of US health plans. Stroke and major bleeding excluding intracranial hemorrhage (MBEIH) events were identified using diagnosis codes on medical claims. RW reference event rates were calculated during periods of warfarin exposure. RW event rates for NOACs were estimated by multiplying the corresponding relative risk (RR) from the RCTs by each reference rate. Absolute risk reductions (ARR) or number of events avoided per patient year were then estimated. Changes in medical costs associated with each NOAC were calculated by applying the ARR to the 1-year cost for each event. Costs for stroke and MBEIH were obtained from the literature. Drug and international normalized ratio monitoring costs were not considered in this analysis. RESULTS: Compared to RW warfarin, use of apixaban and dabigatran resulted in total (stroke plus MBEIH) medical cost reductions of $1245 and $555, respectively, during a patient year. Rivaroxaban resulted in a medical cost increase of $144. CONCLUSIONS: If relative risk reductions demonstrated in RCTs persist in a RW setting, apixaban would confer the greatest medical cost savings vs warfarin, resulting from significantly lower rates of both stroke and MBEIH.

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonists for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a French payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is the main cause of stroke, but the risk can be reduced, usually with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin. The RE-LY atrial fibrillation study demonstrated that the rates of stroke and systemic embolism with dabigatran (an oral direct thrombin inhibitor) were similar to or lower than those with warfarin. AIMS: To estimate the cost-effectiveness, from a French payer perspective, of dabigatran (150 or 110mg bid for patients

Patterns of initiation of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation- quality and cost implications.

BACKGROUND: Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban have been approved for use in patients with atrial fibrillation based upon randomized trials demonstrating their comparable or superior efficacy and safety relative to warfarin. Little is known about their adoption into clinical practice, whether utilization is consistent with the controlled trials on which their approval was based, and how their use has affected health spending for patients and insurers. METHODS: We used medical and prescription claims data from a large insurer to identify patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were prescribed an oral anticoagulant in 2010-2013. We plotted trends in medication initiation over time, assessed corresponding insurer and patient out-of-pocket spending, and evaluated the cumulative number and cost of anticoagulants. We identified predictors of novel anticoagulant initiation using multivariable logistic models. Finally, we estimated the difference in total drug expenditures over 6 months for patients initiating warfarin versus a novel anticoagulant. RESULTS: There were 6893 patients with atrial fibrillation that initiated an oral anticoagulant during the study period. By the end of the study period, novel anticoagulants accounted for 62% of new prescriptions and 98% of anticoagulant-related drug costs. Female sex, lower household income, and higher CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASC, and HAS-BLED scores were significantly associated with lower odds of receiving a novel anticoagulant (P <.001 for each). Average combined patient and insurer anticoagulant spending in the first 6 months after initiation was more than $900 greater for patients initiating a novel anticoagulant. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates rapid adoption of novel anticoagulants into clinical practice, particularly among patients with lower CHADS2 and HAS-BLED scores, and high health care cost consequences. These findings provide important directions for future comparative and cost-effectiveness research.

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in France: comparative cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban), warfarin, and aspirin.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct an economic evaluation of the currently prescribed treatments for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) including warfarin, aspirin, and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) from a French payer perspective. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted in accordance to the new French guidelines of the Commission for Economic Evaluation and Public Health (CEESP), to adopt the recommended efficiency frontier approach. A cohort of patients with NVAF eligible for stroke preventive treatment was simulated over lifetime. Clinical events modeled included strokes, systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and myocardial infarction. Efficacy and bleeding data for warfarin, apixaban, and aspirin were obtained from ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials, whilst efficacy data for other NOACs were from published indirect comparisons. Acute medical costs were obtained from a dedicated analysis of the French national hospitalization database (PMSI). Long-term medical costs and utility data were derived from the literature. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model projections. RESULTS: Warfarin and apixaban were the two optimal treatment choices, as the other five treatment strategies including aspirin, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran in sequential dosages, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban were strictly dominated on the efficiency frontier. Further, apixaban was a cost-effective alternative vs warfarin with an incremental cost of €2314 and an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.189, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12,227/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban may be the most economically efficient alternative to warfarin in NVAF patients eligible for stroke prevention in France. All other strategies were dominated, yielding apixaban as a less costly yet more effective treatment alternative. As formally requested by the CEESP, these results need to be verified in a French clinical setting using stroke reduction and bleeding safety observed in real-life patient cohorts using these anticoagulants.

Benefit-risk assessment of dabigatran in the treatment of stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is the most common clinically significant cardiac arrhythmia and is a common cause of stroke. The direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran etexilate is approved for a variety of indications requiring anticoagulation, including stroke prevention in NVAF. Dabigatran does not require routine monitoring and exhibits only a few drug-drug interactions; however, impaired renal function needs observation. The Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) study comprised about 18,000 patients with NVAF who received dabigatran 110 mg twice daily or 150 mg twice daily, or dose adjusted warfarin. Compared with warfarin, dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was associated with similar rates of stroke and systemic embolism, and lower rates of haemorrhage. Dabigatran 150 mg twice daily was associated with lower rates of stroke and systemic embolism but similar rates of haemorrhage. The rate of intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) was significantly lower in both dabigatran arms. Basing on the results of the RE-LY study, the net clinical benefit balancing stroke against ICH has been estimated with various settings (study data, registry patients). In patients with low stroke risk but at high risk of bleeding, only dabigatran 110 mg twice daily had a positive net clinical benefit when compared with warfarin. In patients with higher stroke risks, both doses of dabigatran (110 and 150 mg twice daily) had a positive net clinical benefit even if the bleeding risk was high. Registry data after approval of dabigatran indicate similar stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding rates with dabigatran (both doses) compared with warfarin. Pharmacovigilance sources prove the anticipated bleeding risk, but a refined analysis of such data showed that bleeding rates associated with dabigatran use did not appear to be higher than those associated with warfarin. Dabigatran confers an advantage over warfarin regarding stoke prevention without the burden of the surveillance of vitamin K antagonists, especially in patients with high stroke risk. However, in elderly patients with impaired renal function or considerable bleeding risks, label advice regarding dosing needs strict observation.

Economic evaluation of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is a major risk factor for stroke, which causes thousands of deaths and sequelae. It is recommended that atrial fibrillation patients at medium or high risk of stroke use an oral anticoagulant to reduce the risk of stroke. In the past few years, three new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, have been introduced in competition to the older oral anticoagulant warfarin. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative cost effectiveness of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban in a Norwegian setting. METHODS: We created a probabilistic decision-analytic Markov model to simulate the life of patients with atrial fibrillation. We performed several scenario analyses, including changing the switching age for dabigatran from 80 to 75 years old. RESULTS: Assuming the European Society of Cardiology guidance, sequential dabigatran (2 × 150 mg daily until 80 years old, 2 × 110 mg thereafter) seems to be the most cost-effective alternative for high-risk AF patients. For medium-risk patients, apixaban (2 × 5 mg daily) seems to be somewhat more effective than dabigatran, but dabigatran is still marginally the most cost-effective alternative. In scenario analyses reducing dabigatran from 2 × 150 mg to 2 × 110 mg at the age of 75 years (instead of at age 80), apixaban (2 × 5 mg daily) becomes the most cost-effective alternative for both risk groups. CONCLUSION: We have found apixaban or sequential dabigatran to be the alternatives most likely to be considered cost effective, depending on the switching age for dabigatran. These conclusions are highly sensitive to assumptions made in the analysis.

Dabigatran assessment in patients with acute complications using routine coagulation assays.

Complications while on dabigatran therapy, particularly bleeding and thrombosis, are occurring, and require laboratory assessment. The utility of routine coagulation assays has been previously evaluated in stable patients, but not those with acute complications. The purpose of this study was to determine how to employ routine coagulation assays to assess dabigatran in patients with acute complications. Seventeen patients on dabigatran presenting with various complications were evaluated. In addition, plasma samples with various fibrinogen levels were spiked in vitro with dabigatran ranging from low trough levels to the highest supratherapeutic concentrations reported (5000 ng/ml). INR, partial thromboplastin time (PTT), thrombin time (TT, Diagnostica Stago reagent), and fibrinogen were assayed and results compared to that of the Hemoclot Thrombin Inhibitors assay. Interference in the Clauss fibrinogen assay was assessed using a variety of commercial reagents. The majority of patients on dabigatran with acute complications demonstrated a significant negative bias in PTT results compared to normal plasma. TT remained highly sensitive to the presence of dabigatran (at least 10 ng/ml) under all circumstances investigated. There was wide variation in the sensitivity of commercial fibrinogen assays to dabigatran, with some even showing interference in the therapeutic range but this could be mitigated. The PTT is unreliable as a method for assessment of dabigatran in patients with acute complications. The TT assay is a simple and reliable alternative, particularly when combined with a fibrinogen level.

Point-of-care coagulation testing for assessment of the pharmacodynamic anticoagulant effect of direct oral anticoagulant.

BACKGROUND: This investigation was carried out with already available point-of-care testing (POCT) systems for coagulation parameters to evaluate the qualitative and semiquantitative determination of the time- and concentration-dependent anticoagulant effects of the direct oral anticoagulants rivaroxaban and dabigatran. METHODS: The whole blood prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and activated clotting time (ACT) were determined using the GEM PCL Plus coagulation system. Whole blood PT was also measured on the CoaguCheck XS instrument. In addition, PT and aPTT values were obtained in citrated plasma using the PT reagent Neoplastin Plus and the STA APTT reagent. Drug concentrations of rivaroxaban and dabigatran were determined with a chromogenic anti-Xa assay and the hemoclot assay, which are reported to have good agreement with liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry measurements. POCT was performed in 27 consecutive patients who received rivaroxaban 10, 15, or 20 mg once daily and in 15 patients receiving dabigatran 110 or 150 mg twice daily. Blood samples were collected predose and 2 hours after observed drug intake at steady state. RESULTS: Two hours after observed rivaroxaban administration, the whole blood PT measured on the GEM PCL Plus was prolonged by an average of 64.5% in comparison with predose levels. Less differentiation was observed for rivaroxaban when the PT was measured on the CoaguCheck XS instrument or in plasma (prolongation of 24.1% and 36.8%, respectively). After 2 hours observed dabigatran administration, the whole blood aPTT was comparable with plasma values and was prolonged by 23.5% in comparison with trough values. Significant concentration-dependent prolongations of the activated clotting time were observed to different extents for both direct anticoagulants. CONCLUSIONS: Direct oral anticoagulants display variable ex vivo effects on different POCT-assays. POCT for aPTT is sensitive to increased concentrations of dabigatran, whereas the PT-POCT assessed with test systems such as the GEM PCL Plus may be helpful to measure the pharmacodynamic anticoagulant effects of rivaroxaban in emergency clinical situations.

Assessment of dabigatran utilization and prescribing patterns for atrial fibrillation in a physician group practice setting.

For years, warfarin and aspirin have been standard therapies for prophylaxis of stroke in atrial fibrillation. In late 2010, dabigatran, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor, became available for use in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. We sought to evaluate utilization and prescribing patterns of dabigatran in a physician group practice setting. We retrospectively collected prescription data from October 2010 to December 2011 including indication of use, dose, renal function, drug interactions, history of warfarin therapy, and risk assessment scores (CHADS2 and HAS-BLED). Off-label use (history of valve disease or no diagnosis of atrial fibrillation) occurred in 20% (n = 34) of 174 patients. Renal function assessed by Cockcroft-Gault equation identified 1 case of contraindicated use and the need for initial renal dose adjustment in approximately 1/2 of the patients with reduced renal function (15-30 ml/min). Review of anticoagulant use revealed 68% of patients (n = 119) previously received warfarin and ultimately 20% of all patients on dabigatran resumed warfarin therapy. A significant increase in the use of permeability glycoprotein inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors after initiating dabigatran was observed. Nearly 10% of patients had a CHADS2 score of 0. For patients receiving novel oral anticoagulants, prospective inclusion in anticoagulation services and guidance from specific "place in therapy" statements have potential to play a large role in maximizing safety while aiding in continued research.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus other new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Apixaban (5 mg BID), dabigatran (available as 150 mg and 110 mg BID in Europe), and rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily) are 3 novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) currently approved for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of apixaban against other NOACs from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Services. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic impact of apixaban versus other NOACs over a lifetime. Pair-wise indirect treatment comparisons were conducted against other NOACs by using ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation), RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy), and ROCKET-AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial results for the following end points: ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds, myocardial infarction, and treatment discontinuations. Outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life years gained, direct health care costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Apixaban was projected to increase life expectancy versus other NOACs, including dabigatran (both doses) and rivaroxaban. A small increase in therapeutic management costs was observed with apixaban due to projected gains in life expectancy and lower discontinuation rates anticipated on apixaban versus other NOACs through lifetime. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £9611, £4497, and £5305 per quality-adjusted life-year gained with apixaban compared with dabigatran 150 mg BID, dabigatran 110 mg BID, and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily, respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust over a wide range of inputs. CONCLUSIONS: Although our analysis was limited by the absence of head-to-head trials, based on the indirect comparison data available, our model projects that apixaban may be a cost-effective alternative to dabigatran 150 mg BID, dabigatran 110 mg BID, and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily for stroke prevention in AF patients from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Services.