Pharmacogenetic guided versus standard warfarin dosing for routine clinical care with its pharmacoeconomic impact: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Empirical use of pharmacogenetic test(PGT) is advocated for many drugs, and resource-rich setting hospitals are using the same commonly. The clinical translation of pharmacogenetic tests in terms of cost and clinical utility is yet to be examined in hospitals of low middle income countries (LMICs). AIM: The present study assessed the clinical utility of PGT by comparing the pharmacogenetically(PGT) guided- versus standard of care(SOC)- warfarin therapy, including the health economics of the two warfarin therapies. METHODS: An open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial recruited warfarin-receiving patients in pharmacogenetically(PGT) guided- versus standard of care(SOC)- study arms. Pharmacogenetic analysis of CYP2C9*2(rs1799853), CYP2C9*3(rs1057910) and VKORC1(rs9923231) was performed for patients recruited to the PGT-guided arm. PT(Prothrombin Time)-INR(international normalized ratio) testing and dose titrations were allowed as per routine clinical practice. The primary endpoint was the percent time spent in the therapeutic INR range(TTR) during the 90-day observation period. Secondary endpoints were time to reach therapeutic INR(TRT), the proportion of adverse events, and economic comparison between two modes of therapy in a Markov model built for the commonest warfarin indication- atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: The study enrolled 168 patients, 84 in each arm. Per-protocol analysis showed a significantly high median time spent in therapeutic INR in the genotype-guided arm(42.85%; CI 21.4-66.75) as compared to the SOC arm(8.8%; CI 0-27.2)(p < 0.00001). The TRT was less in the PG-guided warfarin dosing group than the standard-of-care dosing warfarin group (17.85 vs. 33.92 days) (p = 0.002). Bleeding and thromboembolic events were similar in the two study groups. Lifetime expenditure was ₹1,26,830 in the PGT arm compared to ₹1,17,907 in the SOC arm. The QALY gain did not differ in the two groups(3.9 vs. 3.65). Compared to SOC, the incremental cost-utility ratio was ₹35,962 per QALY gain with PGT test opting. In deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the base case results were found to be insensitive to the variation in model parameters. In the cost-effectiveness-acceptability curve analysis, a 90% probability of cost-effectiveness was reached at a willingness-to-pay(WTP) of ₹ 71,630 well below one time GDP threshold of WTP used. CONCLUSION: Clinical efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of the warfarin pharmacogenetic test suggest its routine use as a point of care investigation for patient care in LMICs.

The Effects of Removing the Requirement for Prior Reimbursement Approval on Anticoagulant Use in Ireland: A Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: Prior approval for reimbursement is a policy of cost containment while ensuring oversight and governance of medicines. It has been employed in Ireland to address financial challenges due to the shift from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Studies assessing the effectiveness of this policy are limited. Thus, we aimed to examine the effectiveness of prior approval for reimbursement of DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban) as a cost containment policy in Ireland. METHODS: The Irish Health Service Executive-Primary Care Reimbursement Service database was used in this cross-sectional study. We examined the prescribing frequencies and associated costs of the oral anticoagulants; [(OACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban and warfarin] listed in the top 100 most frequently prescribed drugs, between 2018 and 2021. Time series negative binomial regression was used to assess the impact of removing the approval requirement of apixaban in September 2019 followed by the other DOACs in November 2020. RESULTS: The prescribing frequency of OACs increased by almost 20% from 2018 to 2021. This study showed there were significant differences in the proportion of OACs prescribed among the Community Drug Schemes. A statistically significant decreased use of apixaban (< 1%, p < 0.05) occurred when prior approval was removed for all DOACs. CONCLUSIONS: The removal of prior approval for reimbursement of DOACs in Ireland had a minimal impact on the prescribing frequency trends of the OACs. Future use of these potentially useful policies by healthcare systems requires careful consideration of drug type, approval criteria and length of time the policy remains in place to minimise any negative effects associated with their use.

Non-warfarin oral anticoagulant copayments and adherence in atrial fibrillation: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atrial fibrillation, incomplete adherence to anticoagulants increases risk of stroke. Non-warfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are expensive; we evaluated whether higher copayments are associated with lower NOAC adherence. METHODS: Using a national claims database of commercially-insured patients, we performed a cohort study of patients with atrial fibrillation who newly initiated a NOAC from 2012 to 2018. Patients were stratified into low (<$35), medium ($35-$59), or high (≥$60) copayments and propensity-score weighted based on demographics, insurance characteristics, comorbidities, prior health care utilization, calendar year, and the NOAC received. Follow-up was 1 year, with censoring for switching to a different anticoagulant, undergoing an ablation procedure, disenrolling from the insurance plan, or death. The primary outcome was adherence, measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Secondary outcomes included NOAC discontinuation (no refill for 30 days after the end of NOAC supply) and switching anticoagulants. We compared PDC using a Kruskal-Wallis test and rates of discontinuation and switching using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: After weighting patients across the 3 copayment groups, the effective sample size was 17,558 patients, with balance across 50 clinical and demographic covariates (standardized differences <0.1). Mean age was 62 years, 29% of patients were female, and apixaban (43%), and rivaroxaban (38%) were the most common NOACs. Higher copayments were associated with lower adherence (P < .001), with a PDC of 0.82 (Interquartile range [IQR] 0.36-0.98) among those with high copayments, 0.85 (IQR 0.41-0.98) among those with medium copayments, and 0.88 (IQR 0.41-0.99) among those with low copayments. Compared to patients with low copayments, patients with high copayments had higher rates of discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.19; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among atrial fibrillation patients newly initiating NOACs, higher copayments in commercial insurance were associated with lower adherence and higher rates of discontinuation in the first year. Policies to lower or limit cost-sharing of important medications may lead to improved adherence and better outcomes among patients receiving NOACs.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with chronic kidney disease in China.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: In non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), rivaroxaban was not inferior to warfarin in preventing stroke and systemic embolism. However, a comparative evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban and warfarin therapies for NVAF patients at different renal function levels has not yet been reported, and this study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in Chinese NVAF patients with CKD. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs associated with the use of rivaroxaban relative to warfarin in patients with NVAF at different estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) levels as follows: 30 to <50, 50 to <80 and ≥80 mL/min. Input parameters were sourced from the clinical literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model uncertainty. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The incrementalQALYs with rivaroxaban was slightly increased by approximately 0.3 QALY as compared with that with warfarin in all the subgroups, resulting in an ICER of $9,736/QALY (eGFR, 30 to <50 mL/min), $9,758/QALY (50 to <80 mL/min) and $9,969/QALY (≥80 mL/min). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested a chance of >80% that the ICER would be lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of three times the GDP of China in 2019 in all the subgroups. Results were consistent even under the assumption of anticoagulant discontinuation after major bleeding events. The model was most sensitive to event-free-related utility and survival rates. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The existing evidence supports the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban therapy as an alternative anticoagulant to warfarin for patients with NVAF at different renal function levels.

Current status and factors influencing oral anticoagulant therapy among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Jiangsu province, China: a multi-center, cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that oral anticoagulation (OAC) is underused among Chinese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) have been recommended by recent guidelines and have been covered since 2017 by the Chinese medical insurance; thus, the overall situation of anticoagulant therapy may change. The aim of this study was to explore the current status of anticoagulant therapy among Chinese patients with NVAF in Jiangsu province. METHODS: This was a multi-center, cross-sectional study that was conducted in seven hospitals from January to September in 2017. The demographic characteristics and medical history of the patients were collected by questionnaire and from the medical records. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with anticoagulant therapy. RESULTS: A total of 593 patients were included in the analysis. A total of 35.6% of the participants received OAC (11.1% NOAC and 24.5% warfarin). Of those patients with a high risk of stroke, 11.1% were on NOAC, 24.8% on warfarin, 30.6% on aspirin, and 33.6% were not on medication. Self-paying, duration of AF ≥5 years were negatively associated with anticoagulant therapy in all patients (OR 1.724, 95% CI 1.086~2.794; OR 1.471, 95% CI 1.006~2.149, respectively), whereas, permanent AF was positively associated with anticoagulant therapy (OR 0.424, 95% CI 0.215~0.839). Among patients with high risk of stroke, self-paying and increasing age were negatively associated with anticoagulant therapy (OR 2.305, 95% CI 1.186~4.478; OR 1.087, 95% CI 1.041~1.135, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulant therapy is positively associated with permanent AF and negatively associated with self-paying, duration of AF > 5 years. Furthermore, the current status of anticoagulant therapy among Chinese patients with NVAF in Jiangsu province does not appear optimistic. Therefore, further studies should focus on how to improve the rate of OAC use among NVAF patients. In addition, policy makers should pay attention to the economic situation of the patients with NVAF using NOAC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 2,017,029. Registered 20 March 2017 (retrospectively registered).

Warfarin control in Hong Kong clinical practice: a single-centre observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Time in therapeutic range (TTR) assesses the safety and effectiveness of warfarin therapy using the international normalised ratio. This study investigated the TTR in Hong Kong patients using both European and Japanese therapeutic ranges and patients' economic and clinical outcomes. Predictors of poor warfarin control and patient knowledge concerning warfarin therapy were assessed. METHODS: A 5-month observational study with retrospective and prospective components was conducted in the Prince of Wales Hospital. The study examined electronic patient records of patients who received warfarin for at least 1 year during the period from January 2010 to August 2015. Patient knowledge was assessed via phone interview using the Oral Anticoagulation Knowledge (OAK) test. RESULTS: In total, 259 patients were included; 174 completed the OAK test. The calculated mean TTR was 40.2±17.1% (European therapeutic range), compared with 49.1±16.1% (Japanese therapeutic range) [P<0.001]. Mean TTR was higher in patients with atrial fibrillation than in patients with prosthetic heart valve (P<0.001). The abilities of TTR to predict clinical and economic outcomes were comparable between European and Japanese therapeutic ranges. Patients with ideal TTR had fewer clinical complications and lower healthcare costs. Patients with younger age exhibited worse TTR, as did those with concurrent use of furosemide, famotidine, or simvastatin. Mean OAK test score was 54.1%. Only 24 (13.8%) patients achieved a satisfactory overall score of ≥75% in the test. CONCLUSION: Warfarin use in Hong Kong patients was poorly controlled, regardless of indication. Patient knowledge concerning warfarin use was suboptimal; thus, additional patient education is warranted regarding warfarin.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Thai Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been recommended as preferred options for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) versus warfarin by guidelines worldwide. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of each NOAC in a Thai health care environment, a country with upper middle-income economies based on the World Bank's classification. METHOD: A lifetime Markov model was created from a Thai societal perspective. The model consisted of 19 health states separated into two cycles: event cycle and consequence cycle. The consequences of AF included in the model were ischaemic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, extracranial haemorrhage, and myocardial infarction. All NOACs available in Thailand (dabigatran 150 mg and 110 mg twice daily; rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily; apixaban 5 mg twice daily; edoxaban 60 mg and 30 mg once daily) were assessed using warfarin with an international normalised ratio of 2-3 as the reference. Inputs were a combination of published literature and local data when available. A willingness-to-pay of 160,000 Thai baht (THB)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used as the threshold of being cost-effective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated. RESULTS: All NOACs were not cost-effective strategies for the Thai AF population. The ranking of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from lowest to highest were apixaban 5 mg twice daily (THB 692,136 or US$21,862) followed by edoxaban 60 mg once daily (THB 911,772 or US$28,799), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (THB 913,749 or US$28,861), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (THB 1,102,106 or US$34,811), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (THB 1,195,347 or US$37,756), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (THB 1,347,650 or US$42,566). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that apixaban had the highest potential to be a cost-effective strategy versus other NOACs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicated that all NOACs were not cost-effective in the Thai AF population. Of the NOACs, apixaban may be the most likely to be cost-effective. These data may be useful for policymakers to perform a comprehensive evaluation of these agents for formulary decision and pricing negotiation.

Comparative effectiveness, safety, and costs of rivaroxaban and warfarin among morbidly obese patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are morbidly obese (body mass index >40 kg/m2 or body weight >120 kg). METHODS: Using data from 2 US healthcare claims databases, we identified patients initiating rivaroxaban or warfarin who had ≥1 medical claim with an AF diagnosis, a diagnostic code for morbid obesity (ICD-9: 278.01, V85.4%; ICD-10: E66.01%, E66.2%, Z68.4%), and a minimum continuous enrollment of 12 months before and 3 months after treatment initiation. Patients were excluded if they had mitral stenosis, a mechanical heart valve procedure, an organ/tissue transplant, or an oral anticoagulant prescription prior to the index date. Rivaroxaban and warfarin patients were 1:1 propensity score matched. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding risk. Generalized linear models were used to compare healthcare resource utilization and costs. RESULTS: A total of 3563 matched pairs of morbidly obese AF patients treated with rivaroxaban or warfarin were identified. The majority (81.4%) of patients in the rivaroxaban cohort were receiving the 20 mg dose. The rivaroxaban and warfarin cohorts were well balanced after propensity score matching. The risks of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were similar for rivaroxaban and warfarin users (stroke/systemic embolism: 1.5% vs 1.7%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60, 1.28; P = .5028; major bleeding: 2.2% vs 2.7%; OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.08; P = .1447). Total healthcare costs including medication costs per patient per year (PPPY) were significantly lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin ($48,552 vs $52,418; P = .0025), which was primarily driven by lower hospitalization rate (50.2% vs 54.1%; P = .0008), shorter length of stay (7.5 vs 9.1 days; P = .0010), and less outpatient service utilization (86 vs 115 visits PPPY; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Morbidly obese AF patients treated with rivaroxaban had comparable risk of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding as those treated with warfarin, but lower healthcare resource utilization and costs.

Health Economic Analysis of Rivaroxaban and Warfarin for Venous Thromboembolism Management in Chinese Patients.

PURPOSE: Rivaroxaban, a direct oral anticoagulant, has demonstrated non-inferiority to warfarin for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment in clinical trials. This study aimed to analyze the direct medical costs for VTE management with rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Hong Kong Chinese patients. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, VTE patients admitted to the Princess Margaret Hospital from March 2012 to February 2017 who were initiated and discharged with either rivaroxaban or warfarin were included. Patient demographic and clinical data, and healthcare resource utilization for VTE management were collected for the VTE index admission and 1-year post-discharge period. RESULTS: A total of 181 patients (90 in the rivaroxaban group; 91 in the warfarin group) were included. The mean (± SD) length of stay (LOS) was 4.8 ± 2.7 days and 8.0 ± 3.0 days in the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups, respectively (p > 0.001). The total cost for VTE index admission in the rivaroxaban group was significantly lower than that of the warfarin group (USD 5473 ± 1914 versus USD 3457 ± 1796; p < 0.001) (USD 1 = HKD 7.8). Recurrent VTE and bleeding rates in 1-year post-discharge period were not significantly different between the two groups. The direct total cost of the rivaroxaban group (USD 1271 ± 767) was significantly lower than that of the warfarin group (USD 1739 ± 1045) in 1-year post-discharge period (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Total direct cost and LOS for VTE admission and total cost in 1-year post-discharge period were significantly lower in patients initiated and discharged with rivaroxaban than those of warfarin.

Assessing patient preferences for switching from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants.

Warfarin remains the most commonly prescribed oral anticoagulant in the United States, but it has disadvantages such as dietary interactions and frequent laboratory monitoring. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been introduced as safer and equally effective alternatives to warfarin. This study assessed patient preference for warfarin or DOAC based on a willingness to pay more for potential DOAC benefits. Current warfarin patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism enrolled in the University of Utah Health Thrombosis Service were given a one-time electronic survey that assessed preferences between warfarin and DOACs using scenarios comparing effectiveness, safety, and convenience. When DOACs were preferred, patients were asked how much more they would be willing to pay monthly for the perceived advantages associated with DOACs. With 123 completed surveys, 68% of patients preferred to stay on warfarin. No particular factor influenced patient preference (lack of routine laboratory monitoring, lower risks of major bleeding, and fewer dietary interactions). Reduced stroke risk was associated with the highest value (willing to pay an additional $21). Considering all factors, patients preferring DOACs would pay a median $18 extra per month for the additional benefits. Prior exposure to DOACs was associated with preference for DOACs. Many patients currently taking warfarin preferred to stay on warfarin when given the choice, despite DOAC benefits. Willingness to pay extra for DOAC advantages did not exceed $20 in the majority of survey respondents. Previous DOAC exposure influences patient preference and perceived value for DOACs.

Modeling patients' time, travel, and monitoring costs in anticoagulation management: societal savings achievable with the shift from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation therapy is used for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients for reducing the risk of cardioembolic complications such as stroke. The previously recommended anticoagulant, warfarin, has a narrow therapeutic window, and it requires regular laboratory monitoring, unlike direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). From a societal perspective, it is important to measure time and travel costs associated with warfarin monitoring to better compare the total therapy costs of these two alternative forms of anticoagulation management. In this study we design a georeferenced cost model to investigate societal savings achievable with the shift from warfarin to DOACs in the study region of North Karelia in Eastern Finland. METHODS: Individual-level patient data of 6519 AF patients was obtained from the regional patient database. Patients' geocoded home addresses and other GIS data were used to perform a network analysis for the optimal routes for warfarin monitoring visits. These measures of revealed accessibility were then used in the cost model to measure monetary time and travel costs in addition to direct healthcare costs of anticoagulation management. RESULTS: The share of time and travel costs in warfarin monitoring is 26.6% of the total therapy costs in our study region. With current drug retail prices in Finland, the societal expense of anticoagulation management is only 2.6% higher with DOACs than in the baseline with warfarin. However, when 25% lower distributor's prices are used, the total societal cost decreases by 13.6% with DOACs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that patients' time and travel costs critically increase the societal cost of warfarin therapy; and despite the higher price of DOACs, they are already cost-efficient alternatives to warfarin in anticoagulation management. In the future, the cost of AF complications should be included in the cost comparison between warfarin and DOACs. Our modeling approach applies to different geographical regions and to different healthcare processes requiring patient monitoring.

Anticoagulation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease.

Background and Purpose- Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are safer, at least equally efficacious, and cost-effective compared to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) but they remain underused, particularly in demented patients. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of DOACs compared with warfarin in patients with AF and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods- We constructed a microsimulation model to estimate the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation therapy (adjusted-dose warfarin and various DOACs) in 70-year-old patients with AF and AD from a US societal perspective. We stratified patient cohorts based on stage of AD and care setting. Model parameters were estimated from secondary sources. Health benefits were measured in the number of acute health events, life-years, and QALYs gained. We classified alternatives as cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. Results- For patients with AF and AD, compared with warfarin, DOACs increase costs but also increase QALYs by reducing the risk of stroke. For mild-AD patients living in the community, edoxaban increased lifetime costs by $6603 and increased QALYs by 0.076 compared to warfarin, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86 882/QALY gained. Even though DOACs increased QALYs compared with warfarin for all patient groups (ranging from 0.019 to 0.085 additional QALYs), no DOAC treatment alternative had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$150 000/QALY gained for patients with moderate to severe AD. For patients living in a long-term care facility with mild AD, the DOAC with the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (rivaroxaban) costs $150 169 per QALY gained; for patients with more severe AD, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were higher. Conclusions- For patients with AF and mild AD living in the community, edoxaban is cost-effective compared with warfarin. Even though patients with moderate and severe AD living in the community and patients with any stage of AD living in a long-term care setting may obtain positive clinical benefits from anticoagulation treatment, DOACs are not cost-effective compared with warfarin for these populations. Compared to aspirin, no oral anticoagulation (warfarin or any DOAC) is cost effective in patients with AF and AD.

Health Care Costs and Utilization of Dabigatran Compared With Warfarin for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Population Study.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether the use of new oral anticoagulants, compared with warfarin, is economically beneficial in Asian countries. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the health care costs and utilization between dabigatran and warfarin in a real-world nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) population. RESEARCH DESIGN: Data were obtained from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database, and patients with an NVAF diagnosis between June 1, 2012, and May 31, 2014, were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code of 427.31. The patients in the dabigatran cohort were matched 1:2 to those in the warfarin cohort by sex, age, residential region, and a propensity score that incorporated a major bleeding history, CHADS2 score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. The all-cause health care utilization and associated costs of the 2 treatment groups were compared at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 1149 patients taking dabigatran were identified and matched with 2298 warfarin users. During the 3-month observation period, the likelihood of having at least 1 hospitalization among dabigatran users was significantly lower than that of warfarin users (odds ratio=0.78; P=0.001). Patients in the dabigatran group incurred lower mean emergency department costs ($2383.1 vs. $3033.6), mean ischemic stroke-related hospitalization costs ($8869.5 vs. $13,990.5), and mean all-cause hospitalization costs ($32,402.2 vs. $50,669.9) at 3 months. However, both the mean and median outpatient costs of warfarin users were consistently lower than those of dabigatran users ($17,161.2 vs. $24,931.4 and $10,509.0 vs. $20,671.5, respectively). Similar trends were observed at 12 months, except that the 2 groups had comparable total health care costs. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dabigatran is associated with lower emergency department and all-cause hospitalization costs but greater outpatient costs in a real-world, NVAF patient population compared with warfarin.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Apixaban versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin use for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with chronic kidney disease is debated. Apixaban was shown to be safer than warfarin, with superior reduction in the risk of stroke, systemic embolism, mortality, and major bleeding irrespective of kidney function. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-utility of apixaban compared with warfarin in AF patients at different levels of kidney function. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness of apixaban compared with warfarin in AF patients at three levels of kidney function: estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of more than 80 ml/min, 50 to 80 ml/min, and 50 ml/min or less. Event rates and associated utilities were obtained from previous literature. The model adopted the US health care system perspective, with hospitalization costs extracted from the Healthcare and Utilization Project. Treatment costs were obtained from official price lists. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of results. RESULTS: Apixaban was a dominant treatment strategy compared with warfarin in AF patients with eGFR levels of 50 ml/min or less and 50 to 80 ml/min. In patients with an eGFR of more than 80 ml/min, apixaban was cost-effective compared with warfarin, costing $6307 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results were consistent assuming anticoagulant discontinuation after major bleeding events. Compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban, apixaban was the only cost-effective anticoagulant strategy relative to warfarin in both mild and moderate renal impairment settings. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban is a favorably cost-effective alternative to warfarin in AF patients with normal kidney function and potentially cost-saving in those with renal impairment.

Edoxaban therapy increases treatment satisfaction and reduces utilization of healthcare resources: an analysis from the EdoxabaN vs. warfarin in subjectS UndeRgoing cardiovErsion of atrial fibrillation (ENSURE-AF) study.

Aims: The EdoxabaN vs. warfarin in subjectS UndeRgoing cardiovErsion of atrial fibrillation (ENSURE-AF) (NCT02072434) study was a multicentre prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint evaluation (PROBE) trial comparing edoxaban with enoxaparin/warfarin followed by warfarin alone in 2199 non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients undergoing electrical cardioversion and showed comparable rates of bleeding and thromboembolism between treatments. This prespecified ancillary analysis investigated the impact of edoxaban therapy on treatment satisfaction and utilization of healthcare services. Methods and results: The Perception of Anticoagulant Treatment Questionnaire (PACT-Q2) was completed by study patients on Day 28 post-cardioversion. Higher scores represent greater satisfaction. Healthcare resource utilizations were collected from randomization to Day 28 post-cardioversion. Data from patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were analysed. Patients treated with edoxaban were more satisfied than enoxaparin/warfarin in both PACT-Q treatment satisfaction and convenience scores (P < 0.001 for both). Differences in treatment satisfaction scores were greater in patients who underwent non-transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE)-guided cardioversion than in patients who underwent TOE-guided cardioversion. Edoxaban was associated with fewer clinic visits (4.75 visits vs. 7.60 visits; P < 0.001) and fewer hospital days (3.43 days vs. 5.41 days; P < 0.05). Rates of hospitalizations and emergency room visits were not significantly different. Overall, edoxaban therapy was estimated to reduce healthcare costs by €107.73, €437.92, €336.75, and $246.32 per patient in German, Spanish, Italian, and US settings, respectively. Conclusions: The convenience of edoxaban therapy over warfarin in patients undergoing cardioversion may provide greater treatment satisfaction and cost savings to the healthcare system.

Healthcare utilization and costs for patients initiating Dabigatran or Warfarin.

BACKGROUND: Novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) such as dabigatran, when compared to warfarin, have been shown to potentially reduce the risk of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) together with lower healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and similar total costs. This study expands on previous work by comparing HCRU and costs for patients newly diagnosed with NVAF and newly initiated on dabigatran or warfarin, and is the first study specifically in a Medicare population. METHODS: A retrospective matched-cohort study was conducted using data from administrative health care claims during the study period 01/01/2010-12/31/2012. Cox regression analyses were used to compare all-cause risk of first hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits. Medical, pharmacy, and total costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were compared between dabigatran and warfarin users. RESULTS: A total of 1110 patients initiated on dabigatran were propensity score-matched with corresponding patients initiated on warfarin. The mean number of hospitalizations (0.92 vs. 1.13, P = 0.012), ER visits (1.32 vs. 1.56, P < 0.01), office visits (21.43 vs. 29.41; P < 0.01), and outpatient visits (10.86 vs. 22.02; P < 0.01) were lower among dabigatran compared to warfarin users. Patients initiated on dabigatran had significantly lower risk of first all-cause ER visits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-0.98] compared to those initiated on warfarin. Adjusted mean pharmacy costs PPPM were significantly greater for dabigatran users ($510 vs. $250, P < 0.001); however, mean medical costs PPPM ($1912 vs. $1956, P = 0.55) and mean total costs PPPM ($2381 vs. $2183, P = 0.10) were not significantly different compared to warfarin users. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran users had significantly lower HCRU compared to warfarin users. In addition, dabigatran users had lower risk of all-cause ER visits. Despite higher pharmacy costs, the two cohorts did not differ significantly in medical or total all-cause costs.

Effectiveness of Pharmacist-led Anticoagulation Management on Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to confirm whether patients benefit more from pharmacist-led anticoagulation management than other models. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and reference lists of yielded results conducted up to April 25, 2017. RCTs and observational cohort studies and case-control studies which compared the percentage of time within the target therapeutic range (TTR), the percentage of time within the expanded therapeutic range (TER), haemorrhage events, thrombosis events, mortality, patient satisfaction and/or medicine cost saving of pharmacist-led anticoagulation management with other models, and species were limited to humans. Two investigators evaluated methodology and extracted data from included studies independently. Data analysis were performed by STATA 12.0 software and quality of evidence assessment was performed by GRADEprofiler software. RESULTS: 8 RCTs and 9 observational cohort studies with 9919 patients were included eventually with high quality and no publication bias. In RCTs pooled results, TTR (p=0.548 moderate-quality), TER (p=0.285, moderate-quality), total haemorrhage events (p=0.140, low-quality), minor haemorrhage events (p=0.162, low-quality), major haemorrhage events (p=0.237, low-quality), thrombosis events (p=0.615, low-quality) and mortality (p=0.876, low-quality) was not significant between two groups. In observational studies pooled results, TTR (p=0.000, low-quality) was significant higher in pharmacist-led management group and the risk of total haemorrhage events (p=0.000, moderate-quality), minor haemorrhage events (p=0.000, moderate-quality) and thrombosis events (p=0.000, moderate-quality) were significant lower in pharmacist-led management group. Patient satisfaction and medicine cost saving were descriptively reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: According to the grading of evidence, we concluded that the risk of total haemorrhage events, minor haemorrhage events and thrombosis events significantly decreased in pharmacist-led anticoagulation management group compared with other management models and no significant difference in TTR, TER, major haemorrhage events and mortality between two groups. Longer follow-up period RCT studies with large sample size should be done in the future to confirm effectiveness of pharmacist-led anticoagulation management model. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.

Shortened hospital length of stay and lower costs associated with rivaroxaban in patients with pulmonary embolism managed as observation status.

BACKGROUND: Unlike rivaroxaban, treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) with warfarin requires parenteral bridging and coagulation monitoring that may prolong length-of-stay (LOS) and increase hospital costs. AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare LOS, hospital costs and readmissions in PE patients managed through observation stays treated with rivaroxaban or parenterally bridged warfarin. METHODS: Premier Hospital claims data from November 2012 to March 2015 were used to identify patients with a primary diagnosis code for PE managed through an observation stay and with ≥1 claim for a PE-related diagnostic test on day 0-2. Rivaroxaban users, allowing ≤2 days of prior parenteral therapy, were 1:1 propensity-score matched to patients receiving parenterally bridged warfarin. LOS, the proportion of encounters lasting >2 midnights, total hospital costs of the index visit and risk of readmission for venous thromboembolism (VTE) or major bleeding during the same month or 2 months subsequent to the index event were compared between matched cohorts using multivariable regression. RESULTS: A total of 312 rivaroxaban users were matched to 312 patients receiving parenterally bridged warfarin. Rivaroxaban was associated with an average of 0.27-day shorter LOS, a 52% decreased odds of an encounter lasting >2 midnights and a $403 mean reduction in costs vs parenterally bridged warfarin (P≤.002 for all). The readmission rate for VTE during the same or subsequent 2 months following the index PE was similar between cohorts (P=.75). No patient in either cohort was readmitted for major bleeding. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban was associated with shortened LOS and lowered cost vs parenterally bridged warfarin in PE observation stay patients, without increases in the short-term rate of complications or readmission.

Cost-effectiveness of the pharmacist-assisted warfarin monitoring program at a Medical Center in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of the first patient self-paying pharmacist-assisted warfarin monitoring (PAWM) program in Taiwan. DESIGN: A Markov model with a 1-month cycle length and a 20-year time horizon was employed in this study. The model is composed of the following eight states: three no-event states (i.e. 'subtherapeutic,' 'within therapeutic' and 'supratherapeutic' states), two serious adverse events (AEs) (i.e. bleeding and thromboembolism), two sequelae states and death. The likelihood of events, costs and utilities were derived from local databases and literature, if applicable. This study was conducted with a payer's perspective and all costs were discounted with a rate of 3%. SETTING: A pharmacist-led clinic. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical cohort of 10 000 participants. INTERVENTION(S): PAWM versus usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Average quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and cost increments per patient, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: The PAWM program resulted in an average of 0.13 QALYs gained and a cost increment of NT$53 850 (US$1683) per patient. As the ICER (NT$410 749 [US$12 836]) was less than the gross domestic product per capita (NT$631 142 [US$19 723]), the PAWM was considered to be very cost-effective. The sensitivity analyses suggested that our result was robust and that the PAWM program had an 86% probability of being very cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Even if the costs saved from avoiding AEs were thought to be minimal due to the low-medical expenditures in Taiwan, the PAWM program was demonstrated to be economical. According to our findings, the policymakers should consider reimbursing such a service.

The Cost Differential Between Warfarin Versus Aspirin Treatment After a Fontan Procedure.

BACKGROUND: The use of aspirin versus warfarin for treatment of patients after a Fontan procedure remains contentious. Current preference-based models of treatment across Australia and New Zealand show variation in care that is unlikely to reflect patient differences and/or clinical risk. METHODS: We combine data from the Australian and New Zealand Fontan Registry and a home INR (International Normalised Ratio) monitoring program (HINRMP) from the Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) Melbourne, to estimate the cost difference for Fontan recipients receiving aspirin versus warfarin for 2015. We adopt a societal perspective to costing which includes cost to the health system (e.g. medical consults, pathology tests) and costs to patients and carers (e.g. travel and time), but excludes costs of adverse events. Costs are presented in Australian 2015 dollars; any costs from previous years have been inflated using appropriate rates from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. RESULTS: We find that warfarin patients face additional costs of $825 per annum, with the majority ($584 or 71%) of those borne by the patient or family. If aspirin is as clinically as effective as warfarin, Fontan recipients could be enjoying far less costly, invasive and time-consuming treatment. While achieving such clinical consensus can be difficult, economics shows us that there are large costs associated with a failure to achieve it.