Cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation using real-world evidence in elderly US Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: Dabigatran and rivaroxaban have been approved by the US FDA to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Newly published real-world evidence based on the US population found that elderly Medicare patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban experienced statistically significant increases in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding, and statistically nonsignificant decreases in thromboembolic stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared with dabigatran. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban for the treatment of US Medicare NVAF patients. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted to compare dabigatran and rivaroxaban. The model considered thromboembolic stroke, bleeding events, and AMI based on the published real-world event risks. Model outputs included clinical event rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Dabigatran patients experienced fewer ICH and major extracranial bleeding events than rivaroxaban patients, but more stroke and AMI events. Dabigatran was found to yield lower costs and higher QALYs than rivaroxaban, with incremental costs of -$3534 and incremental QALYs of 0.004. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses, with a positive net monetary benefit (willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY) for dabigatran over rivaroxaban for all model inputs tested. CONCLUSIONS: In this study using US Medicare real-world data, dabigatran was found to dominate rivaroxaban. The analyses were limited by the short follow-up period of the real-world data and results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.

Indirect comparison and cost-utility of dabigatran etexilate and rivaroxaban in the treatment and extended anticoagulation of venous thromboembolism in a UK setting.

BACKGROUND: Acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is traditionally managed with a short course of parenteral anticoagulation followed by 3-6 months of a vitamin-K antagonist. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) do not require routine monitoring and dose adjustment, thus potentially provide an alternative treatment option. METHODS AND RESULTS: Because of the lack of head-to-head clinical studies, an indirect comparison was conducted of dabigatran etexilate and rivaroxaban based on the respective phase III clinical trial. The derived relative safety and efficacy estimates were used to evaluate the cost-utility of dabigatran compared with rivaroxaban in the treatment and secondary prevention of VTE. The results of the indirect comparison showed no significant difference between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in avoiding recurrent VTE following index PE, index DVT, or DVT/PE combined, in treatment and extended anticoagulation. Dabigatran has significantly less major or clinically relevant bleeds (MCRBE) compared to rivaroxaban in treatment after index DVT and treatment after DVT or PE combined, but was not significantly different from rivaroxaban after index PE or in extended anticoagulation. In cost-utility deterministic analyses, dabigatran was projected dominant in all analyzed settings, given its marginally lower total cost and marginally higher QALYs gained compared to rivaroxaban. Probabilistic analyses results showed a high likelihood of dabigatran being considered good value for money in the UK, in treatment and in secondary prevention of VTE. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness evaluations showed that dabigatran can be considered the dominant treatment strategy compared to rivaroxaban in the patients' sub-groups considered, given the projected marginally higher clinical benefits and lower treatment costs.

The cost-utility of dabigatran etexilate compared with warfarin in treatment and extended anticoagulation of acute VTE in the UK.

The relative efficacy and safety of dabigatran etexilate and warfarin have been evaluated in two head-to-head, phase III, treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) trials, and one extended prophylaxis trial, in patients with high risk of recurrent VTE. Dabigatran etexilate demonstrated similar efficacy to warfarin, and was associated with a reduced risk of major or clinically relevant bleeds. Based on results of these trials, and real-life disease prognosis following discontinuation of anticoagulation treatment, we evaluated the cost-utility of dabigatran etexilate compared with warfarin in six months anticoagulation, and in extended, up to 24 months anticoagulation, in patients with acute VTE, acute deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) or acute, symptomatic, pulmonary embolism (PE). Costs were analysed from the perspective of the National Health Services (NHS) and Public Social Services (PSS) in England and Wales. Outcomes were quantified in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The estimated incremental, lifetime cost/QALY gain following acute, symptomatic VTE (DVT or PE) was £1,252/QALY when dabigatran etexilate or warfarin were administered for up to six months treatment. In treatment of acute, symptomatic PE and in DVT respective ratios were £1,767/QALY and £1,075/QALY. In extended, up to 24 months anticoagulation, dabigatran etexilate projected costs/QALY of £8,242/QALY, when compared with warfarin. Results obtained herein were robust across a number of sensitivity analyses and suggest dabigatran etexilate to be a cost-effective alternative to current standard of care when evaluated in six months treatment and in extended anticoagulation following acute VTE (DVT and/or PE).