Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analyses of Dabigatran Compared with Warfarin in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Risk Factors for Stroke and Systemic Embolism within Brazilian Private and Public Health Care Systems Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of dabigatran compared with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with moderate to high risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and eligible for treatment with anticoagulants. METHODS: Markov-based economic analysis was performed to estimate treatment costs and outcomes. Epidemiological and efficacy data were determined after a critical revision of the medical literature. Unit costs were taken from Brazilian official databases. Only direct medical costs were covered. Costs and benefits were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. Outcomes were expressed as life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Dabigatran use is cost-effective in terms of LY and QALY considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times gross domestic product per capita of 2010 (Brazilian real 57,048/US $24,275.74) per LY and QALY saved in both analyzed perspectives (private and public health care systems). CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran use improves patient survival and quality of life compared with warfarin. This represents the best therapeutic option in terms of cost and effectiveness in the prevention of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of dabigatran compared with warfarin in patients with non valvular atrial fibrillation and risk factors for stroke and systemic embolism with in Brazilian private and public health care systems perspectives

Objective: To analyze the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of dabigatran compared with warfarin in patients with non valvular atrial fibrillation with moderate to high risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and eligible for treatment with anticoagulants. Methods: Markov-based economic analysis was performed to estimate treatment costs and outcomes. Epidemiologicalandefficacy data were determined after a critical revision of the medical literature. Unit costs were taken from Brazilian official databases. Only direct medical costs were covered. Costs and benefits were discounte data rate of 5% per year. Outcomes were expressed as life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: Dabigatranuseis cost-effective intermsofLYandQALY considering a willingness-to-pay thresholdof 3times gross domestic product per capita of 2010 (Brazilian rea l57,048/US$24,275.74) perLYand QALY saved in both analyzed perspectives (private and public health care systems). Conclusions: Dabigatran use improves patient survival and quality of life compared with warfarin. This represents the best therapeutic option in terms of cost and effectiveness in the prevention of ischemi cstroke and systemic embolism in patients with non valvular atrial fibrillation.

Efficacy of tenecteplase in combination with enoxaparin, abciximab, or unfractionated heparin: one-year follow-up results of the Assessment of the Safety of a New Thrombolytic-3 (ASSENT-3) randomized trial in acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: In the ASsessment of the Safety of a New Thrombolytic 3 (ASSENT-3) study, full-dose tenecteplase plus enoxaparin or half-dose tenecteplase plus abciximab reduced the frequency of ischemic complications of acute myocardial infarction, when compared to full-dose tenecteplase plus unfractionated heparin. The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of these fibrinolytic regimens on 1-year mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: Vital status at 1 year was available for 5942 patients (97.5%) of the 6095 initially enrolled in the study. At 1 year, 515 patients (8.7%) had died. Elderly or female patients and patients with low body weight, previous myocardial infarction, anterior wall myocardial infarction, and diabetes were at increased risk for death at 1 year. Mortality at 1 year was 7.9 % (n = 161) in the heparin group, 8.1% (n = 166) in the enoxaparin group, and 9.3% (n = 188) in the abciximab group (P =.226). Overall, pairwise comparisons did not show a significant difference among treatment regimens: relative risk 1.03 (95% CI 0.82-1.30) for enoxaparin versus heparin (P =.794) and relative risk 1.18 (95% CI 0.95-1.47) for abciximab versus heparin (P =.144). However, 1-year outcome tended to be worse with abciximab in diabetic patients. CONCLUSION: Mortality at 1 year after acute myocardial infarction remains high. Despite a reduction in ischemic complications after acute myocardial infarction with the use of full-dose tenecteplase plus enoxaparin or half-dose tenecteplase plus abciximab, mortality at 1 year was similar in these treatment groups.