RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics (PGx)-based warfarin (i.e., warfarin dosing following genetic testing), apixaban, and rivaroxaban oral anticoagulation versus standard warfarin for the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) aged ≥ 65 years. METHODS: We developed a Markov decision-analytic model to compare costs [2017 Canadian dollars (C$)] and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the Ontario health care payer perspective over a life-time horizon. The parameters used in the model were derived from the published literature, the Ontario health care administrative database, and expert opinion. To account for the uncertainty of model parameters, we conducted extensive deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The results were summarized using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: We found that PGx-based warfarin had an ICER of C$17,584/QALY compared with standard warfarin, and apixaban had an ICER of C$64,590/QALY compared with PGx-based warfarin in our base-case analysis. Rivaroxaban was extendedly dominated by PGx-based warfarin and apixaban. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that apixaban, rivaroxaban, PGx-based warfarin, and standard warfarin were cost-effective at some willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. PGx-based warfarin had a higher probability of being cost-effective than apixaban (51.3% versus 14.3%) at a WTP threshold of C$50,000/QALY. At a WTP threshold of C$100,000/QALY, apixaban had a higher probability of being cost-effective than PGx-based warfarin (54.6% versus 22.6%). CONCLUSION: We found that PGx-based warfarin for patients with AF is cost-effective at a WTP threshold of C$50,000/QALY. Apixaban had a higher probability of being cost-effective (> 50%) at a WTP threshold of C$93,000/QALY.