Screening over 100 000 patients in 39 general practices in the Netherlands for anticoagulation underprescription in atrial fibrillation: a descriptive, cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the underprescription of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in individual atrial fibrillation (AF) patients in primary care. SETTING: Screening of patient records in 39 participating general practitioners (GPs) across the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: We screened 101 207 patient records identifying 2375 non-valvular AF patients. METHODS: Using electronic patient files, we were able to screen the entire GP population for AF, CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk scores, and the use of guidelines recommended OAC prescription. In case of a deviation from guidelines recommended OAC prescription, we checked the electronic patient file for any documented reason. Additionally, 6 weeks following the screening, we asked all GPs to provide information on any actions taken for the underprescribed patients. RESULTS: We found a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3.2. OAC prescription consisted of direct OAC in 1342/1984 (68%) and vitamin K-antagonists in the remainder of patients. OAC underprescription was present in 93/944 (9.9%) females and 101/1374 (9.7%) in males, respectively. In 111/146 (76.0%) of the underprescribed AF patients, no reason to withhold OAC was reported. Reported reasons to withhold OAC were patient refusal (n=10), cardiologist advice (n=7) and high risk of bleeding (n=7). Data regarding actions following the identification of OAC underprescription were available for 92/194 (47%) of the OAC underprescribed cases. After consultation OAC was initiated in 9/92 (10%) only. CONCLUSIONS: In this large Dutch study among GPs, we observed 9.8% underprescription of OAC in AF patients. In 76% of the AF patients lacking a prescription for OAC, no documentation for deviating from the guidelines was found. Only in a minority of cases detection of OAC underprescription lead to OAC initiation.

Correction: Cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared to other anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation in the real-world and trial settings.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222658.].

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared to other anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation in the real-world and trial settings.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and real-world data (RWD) in patients with atrial fibrillation have shown that-compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs)-non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are at least as effective in the prevention of ischaemic stroke, while decreasing the risk of bleeding. OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the NOAC apixaban versus other NOACs (dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) and VKA, for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation by including the available data both from RCT and real-world analyses of all NOACs into one integrative previously published model. METHODS: The model was updated to the current Dutch healthcare situation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated using either efficacy/effectiveness and safety data derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA) synthesizing NOAC RCTs or RWD. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify eligible publication to best inform the RWD-based analysis. Additional sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the outcomes. RESULTS: In the NMA-based analysis, apixaban appeared to be cost-effective compared to VKA (€3,506 per quality adjusted life-year) and dominant (cost-saving and more effective) over dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, edoxaban and rivaroxaban. In the RWD-based analysis, apixaban was dominant over all other anticoagulants. In the scenario analysis apixaban appeared to be not cost-effective compared to dabigatran 150 mg, when using equal event-unrelated treatment discontinuation rates for each drug. In all other scenarios apixaban is cost-effective or cost-saving compared to VKA and other NOACs. CONCLUSION: Based on RCTs as well as RWD, we conclude that apixaban is generally cost-effective or even cost-saving (less costly and more effective) compared to VKA and other NOACs in the overall population of patients with atrial fibrillation.

Extended Treatment with Apixaban for Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Netherlands: Clinical and Economic Effects.

Background Dutch guidelines advise extended anticoagulant treatment with direct oral anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists for patients with idiopathic venous thromboembolism (VTE) who do not have high bleeding risk. Objectives The aim of this study was to analyze the economic effects of extended treatment of apixaban in the Netherlands, based on an updated and adapted previously published model. Methods We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis simulating a population of 1,000 VTE patients. The base-case analysis compared extended apixaban treatment to no treatment after the first 6 months. Five additional scenarios were conducted to evaluate the effect of different bleeding risks and health care payers' perspective. The primary outcome of the model is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in costs (€) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with one QALY defined as 1 year in perfect health. To account for any influence of the uncertainties in the model, probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted. The treatment was considered cost-effective with an ICER less than €20,000/QALY, which is the most commonly used willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for preventive drugs in the Netherlands. Results The model showed a reduction in recurrent VTE and no increase in major bleeding events for extended treatment in all scenarios. The base-case analysis showed an ICER of €9,653/QALY. The probability of being cost-effective for apixaban in the base-case was 70.0% and 91.4% at a WTP threshold of €20,000/QALY and €50,000/QALY, respectively. Conclusion Extended treatment with apixaban is cost-effective for the prevention of recurrent VTE in Dutch patients.