Economic process to co-produce poly(ε-l-lysine) and poly(l-diaminopropionic acid) by a pH and dissolved oxygen control strategy.

This study tended to apply biorefinery of indigenous microbes to the fermentation of target-product generation through a novel control strategy. A novel strategy for co-producing two valuable homopoly(amino acid)s, poly(ε-l-lysine) (ε-PL) and poly(l-diaminopropionic acid) (PDAP), was developed by controlling pH and dissolved oxygen concentrations in Streptomyces albulus PD-1 fermentation. The production of ε-PL and PDAP got 29.4 and 9.6gL(-1), respectively, via fed-batch cultivation in a 5L bioreactor. What is more, the highest production yield (21.8%) of similar production systems was achieved by using this novel strategy. To consider the economic-feasibility, large-scale production in a 1t fermentor was also implemented, which would increase the gross profit of 54,243.5USD from one fed-batch bioprocess. This type of fermentation, which produces multiple commercial products from a unified process is attractive, because it will improve the utilization rate of raw materials, enhance production value and enrich product variety.

[Doubts about the new oral anticoagulants]. / Vraagtekens bij de nieuwe antistollingsmiddelen: alarmerend signaal over de introductie van NOAC's.

Recently, The British Medical Journal published three articles and an editorial on the RE-LY trial and the admission to the market of dabigatran. In these publications, concerns were raised regarding the data in this key trial and the registration process. Moreover, a lack of transparency was brought to light about the safety of unmonitored dabigatran use. The results of the RE-LY trial were important evidence for an advice of the Health Council of the Netherlands on the introduction of the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in the Netherlands, published in 2012. At present, the question arises whether dabigatran use requires monitoring and what the consequences are for the cost-effectiveness of NOACs.

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Singapore. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to compare the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of dabigatran 110 and 150 mg, rivaroxaban 20 mg and adjusted-dose warfarin from the perspective of the Singapore healthcare system, using clinical data from published studies, utilities from a patient-reported survey and costs from hospital databases. The target population was a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old AF patients with no contraindications to anticoagulation. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the QALYs were 8.75 with warfarin, 8.73 with dabigatran 110 mg, 8.82 with dabigatran 150 mg, and 9.33 with rivaroxaban. The costs were Singapore dollar (SG$) 34,648 for warfarin, SG$54,919 for dabigatran 110 mg, SG$50,484 for dabigatran 150 mg and SG$51,975 for rivaroxaban. The ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was SG$29,697 (US$26,727) per QALY. Rivaroxaban and warfarin had extended dominance over the high-dose dabigatran. The low-dose dabigatran was dominated by warfarin. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was sensitive to cost of rivaroxaban and utilities for rivaroxaban and warfarin. Probability sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of rivaroxaban being the optimal choice was 97.8% and 99.5% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of SG$65,000 (US$58,500) and SG$130,000 (US$117,000) per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban may be a cost-effective alternative to warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF in Singapore.

Cost effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in two different European healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to investigate the cost effectiveness of apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran compared with coumarin derivatives for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in a country with specialized anticoagulation clinics (the Netherlands) and in a country without these clinics (the UK). METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was used to analyse the cost effectiveness of apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran compared with coumarin derivatives in the Netherlands and the UK over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: In the Netherlands, the use of rivaroxaban, apixaban, or dabigatran increased health by 0.166, 0.365, and 0.374 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with coumarin derivatives, but also increased costs by 5,681, 4,754, and 5,465, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were 34,248, 13,024, and 14,626 per QALY gained. In the UK, health was increased by 0.302, 0.455, and 0.461 QALYs, and the incremental costs were similar for all three new oral anticoagulants (5,118-5,217). The ICERs varied from 11,172 to 16,949 per QALY gained. In the Netherlands, apixaban had the highest chance (37 %) of being cost effective at a threshold of 20,000; in the UK, this chance was 41 % for dabigatran. The quality of care, reflected in time in therapeutic range, had an important influence on the ICER. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran are cost-effective alternatives to coumarin derivatives in the UK, while in the Netherlands, only apixaban and dabigatran could be considered cost effective. The cost effectiveness of the new oral anticoagulants is largely dependent on the setting and quality of local anticoagulant care facilities.

Identifying future research priorities using value of information analyses: left atrial appendage occlusion devices in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion devices are cost effective for stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation when compared with dabigatran or warfarin. We illustrate the use of value-of-information analyses to quantify the degree and consequences of decisional uncertainty and to identify future research priorities. METHODS AND RESULTS: A microsimulation decision-analytic model compared left atrial appendage occlusion devices to dabigatran or warfarin in atrial fibrillation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis quantified the degree of parameter uncertainty. Expected value of perfect information analyses showed the consequences of this uncertainty. Expected value of partial perfect information analyses were done on sets of input parameters (cost, utilities, and probabilities) to identify the source of the greatest uncertainty. One-way sensitivity analyses identified individual parameters for expected value of partial perfect information analyses. Population expected value of perfect information and expected value of partial perfect information provided an upper bound on the cost of future research. Substantial uncertainty was identified, with left atrial appendage occlusion devices being preferred in only 47% of simulations. The expected value of perfect information was $8542 per patient and $227.3 million at a population level. The expected value of partial perfect information for the set of probability parameters represented the most important source of uncertainty, at $6875. Identified in 1-way sensitivity analyses, the expected value of partial perfect information for the odds ratio for stroke with left atrial appendage occlusion compared with warfarin was calculated at $7312 per patient or $194.5 million at a population level. CONCLUSION: The relative efficacy of stroke reduction with left atrial appendage occlusion devices in relation to warfarin is an important source of uncertainty. Improving estimates of this parameter should be the priority for future research in this area.

[Cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared to other new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation].

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is associated with development of thromboembolic events. New oral anticoagulants (apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran) are recommended for antithrombotic therapy in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) with moderate and high risk of stroke. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness ratio of apixaban compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban in patients with NVAF from the Russian Federation national health care system perspective. METHODS: This analysis used a Markov model that allowed estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for apixaban compared to rivaroxaban and dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg over lifetime horizon for patients with NVAF. The model enclosed cardiovascular event rates based on the results of the indirect treatment comparison that combined data from the randomized clinical trials comparing clinical effectiveness and safety of apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran with warfarin (ARISTOTLE, ROCKET-AF, RE-LY). The following cardiovascular events were considered: ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds and myocardial infarction. Direct medical costs were determined based on the rates of the compulsory national medical insurance system. The price of the new oral anticoagulants was taken as a weighted average tender price for the year 2013. In the model both costs and benefits (quality-adjusted life years and life-years) were discounted at 3.5%. Cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 1.4 million rubles per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and corresponded to the three times GDP per capita in 2013 in the Russian Federation. RESULTS: In the base case analysis it was demonstrated that apixaban compared to dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg and rivaroxaban provided additional 0.101, 0.060 and 0.072 life years as well as additional 0.063; 0.038 and 0.041 QALYs respectively. Over lifetime horizon apixaban compared to dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg and rivaroxaban required additional treatment costs equal to 22.78; 31.18 and 6.70 thousands rubles, respectively. With that estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for apixaban compared to dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg and rivaroxaban was 362.60, 805.54 and 162.45 thousands rubles per QALY correspondingly. CONCLUSION: Apixaban provided increased life expectancy compared to other new anticoagulants and may be considered as a cost-effective alternative to dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg and rivaroxaban from the Russian Federation national health care system perspective.

Evaluation of medical costs associated with use of new oral anticoagulants compared with standard therapy among venous thromboembolism patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated differences in medical costs associated with clinical end-points from randomized clinical trials that compared the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, to standard therapy for treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Event rates of efficacy and safety end-points from the clinical trials (RE-COVER, RE-COVER II, EINSTEIN-Pooled, AMPLIFY, Hokusai-VTE trial) were obtained from published literature. Incremental annual medical costs among patients with clinical events from a US payer perspective were obtained from the literature or healthcare claims databases and inflation adjusted to 2013 costs. Differences in total medical costs associated with clinical end-points for the NOACs vs standard therapy were then estimated. One-way and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: A lower rate of major bleedings was associated with use of any of the NOACs vs standard therapy. Except for dabigatran, use of NOACs was also associated with a lower rate of recurrent VTE/death. As a result of the reduction in clinical event rates, the overall medical cost differences were -$146, -$482, -$918, and -$344 for VTE patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, respectively, vs patients treated with standard therapy. CONCLUSIONS: When any of the four NOACs are used instead of standard therapy for acute VTE, treatment medical costs are reduced. Apixaban is associated with the greatest reduction in medical costs, which is driven by medical cost reductions associated with both efficacy and safety end-points. Further evaluation may be needed to validate these results in the real-world setting.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation in different age subgroups.

This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran 150 mg twice daily versus warfarin for stroke and systemic embolism risk reduction in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation initiating treatment before age 75 (<75), at or after age 75 (≥ 75), and the overall population (All) from a US Medicare payer perspective. Clinical event rates by age cohort with dabigatran or warfarin for safety-on-treatment and intent-to-treat populations were estimated from Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY). An economic model was adapted using these data to evaluate the impact of starting age on clinical and economic outcomes. Costs were obtained from Medicare payment schedules and utilities from publications. Model outputs included event rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The RE-LY analysis shows that the <75 cohort has lower rates of all events than the ≥ 75 cohort; versus warfarin, dabigatran performed better in main efficacy and safety in all age cohorts with the exception of extracranial hemorrhage in the ≥ 75 cohort. The clinical event costs avoided per patient for dabigatran were $1,100, $135, and $713 for cohorts <75, ≥ 75, and All, respectively. Extrapolating over a lifetime horizon, the model found that dabigatran resulted in lower rates of stroke and intracranial hemorrhage and higher rates for extracranial hemorrhage versus warfarin for all age cohorts. Lifetime quality-adjusted life-years and costs were higher for dabigatran than warfarin, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $52,773, $65,946, and $56,131 for cohorts <75, ≥ 75, and All, respectively. In conclusion, dabigatran was cost-effective versus warfarin in US patients with atrial fibrillation regardless of age of treatment initiation.

Estimated medical cost reductions associated with use of novel oral anticoagulants vs warfarin in a real-world non-valvular atrial fibrillation patient population.

OBJECTIVE: RESULTS of randomized clinical trials (RCT) demonstrate that novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are effective therapies for reducing the risk of stroke in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Prior medical cost avoidance studies have used warfarin event rates from RCTs, which may differ from patients receiving treatment in a real-world (RW) setting, where the quality of care may not be the same as in a RCT. The purpose of this study was to estimate the change in medical costs related to stroke and major bleeding for each NOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivoraxaban) relative to warfarin in a RW NVAF population. METHODS: Patients (n = 23,525) with a diagnosis of NVAF during 2007-2010 were selected from a Medco population of US health plans. Stroke and major bleeding excluding intracranial hemorrhage (MBEIH) events were identified using diagnosis codes on medical claims. RW reference event rates were calculated during periods of warfarin exposure. RW event rates for NOACs were estimated by multiplying the corresponding relative risk (RR) from the RCTs by each reference rate. Absolute risk reductions (ARR) or number of events avoided per patient year were then estimated. Changes in medical costs associated with each NOAC were calculated by applying the ARR to the 1-year cost for each event. Costs for stroke and MBEIH were obtained from the literature. Drug and international normalized ratio monitoring costs were not considered in this analysis. RESULTS: Compared to RW warfarin, use of apixaban and dabigatran resulted in total (stroke plus MBEIH) medical cost reductions of $1245 and $555, respectively, during a patient year. Rivaroxaban resulted in a medical cost increase of $144. CONCLUSIONS: If relative risk reductions demonstrated in RCTs persist in a RW setting, apixaban would confer the greatest medical cost savings vs warfarin, resulting from significantly lower rates of both stroke and MBEIH.

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonists for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a French payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is the main cause of stroke, but the risk can be reduced, usually with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin. The RE-LY atrial fibrillation study demonstrated that the rates of stroke and systemic embolism with dabigatran (an oral direct thrombin inhibitor) were similar to or lower than those with warfarin. AIMS: To estimate the cost-effectiveness, from a French payer perspective, of dabigatran (150 or 110mg bid for patients

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in France: comparative cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban), warfarin, and aspirin.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct an economic evaluation of the currently prescribed treatments for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) including warfarin, aspirin, and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) from a French payer perspective. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted in accordance to the new French guidelines of the Commission for Economic Evaluation and Public Health (CEESP), to adopt the recommended efficiency frontier approach. A cohort of patients with NVAF eligible for stroke preventive treatment was simulated over lifetime. Clinical events modeled included strokes, systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and myocardial infarction. Efficacy and bleeding data for warfarin, apixaban, and aspirin were obtained from ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials, whilst efficacy data for other NOACs were from published indirect comparisons. Acute medical costs were obtained from a dedicated analysis of the French national hospitalization database (PMSI). Long-term medical costs and utility data were derived from the literature. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model projections. RESULTS: Warfarin and apixaban were the two optimal treatment choices, as the other five treatment strategies including aspirin, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran in sequential dosages, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban were strictly dominated on the efficiency frontier. Further, apixaban was a cost-effective alternative vs warfarin with an incremental cost of €2314 and an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.189, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12,227/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban may be the most economically efficient alternative to warfarin in NVAF patients eligible for stroke prevention in France. All other strategies were dominated, yielding apixaban as a less costly yet more effective treatment alternative. As formally requested by the CEESP, these results need to be verified in a French clinical setting using stroke reduction and bleeding safety observed in real-life patient cohorts using these anticoagulants.

Patterns of initiation of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation- quality and cost implications.

BACKGROUND: Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban have been approved for use in patients with atrial fibrillation based upon randomized trials demonstrating their comparable or superior efficacy and safety relative to warfarin. Little is known about their adoption into clinical practice, whether utilization is consistent with the controlled trials on which their approval was based, and how their use has affected health spending for patients and insurers. METHODS: We used medical and prescription claims data from a large insurer to identify patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were prescribed an oral anticoagulant in 2010-2013. We plotted trends in medication initiation over time, assessed corresponding insurer and patient out-of-pocket spending, and evaluated the cumulative number and cost of anticoagulants. We identified predictors of novel anticoagulant initiation using multivariable logistic models. Finally, we estimated the difference in total drug expenditures over 6 months for patients initiating warfarin versus a novel anticoagulant. RESULTS: There were 6893 patients with atrial fibrillation that initiated an oral anticoagulant during the study period. By the end of the study period, novel anticoagulants accounted for 62% of new prescriptions and 98% of anticoagulant-related drug costs. Female sex, lower household income, and higher CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASC, and HAS-BLED scores were significantly associated with lower odds of receiving a novel anticoagulant (P <.001 for each). Average combined patient and insurer anticoagulant spending in the first 6 months after initiation was more than $900 greater for patients initiating a novel anticoagulant. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates rapid adoption of novel anticoagulants into clinical practice, particularly among patients with lower CHADS2 and HAS-BLED scores, and high health care cost consequences. These findings provide important directions for future comparative and cost-effectiveness research.

Economic evaluation of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is a major risk factor for stroke, which causes thousands of deaths and sequelae. It is recommended that atrial fibrillation patients at medium or high risk of stroke use an oral anticoagulant to reduce the risk of stroke. In the past few years, three new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, have been introduced in competition to the older oral anticoagulant warfarin. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative cost effectiveness of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban in a Norwegian setting. METHODS: We created a probabilistic decision-analytic Markov model to simulate the life of patients with atrial fibrillation. We performed several scenario analyses, including changing the switching age for dabigatran from 80 to 75 years old. RESULTS: Assuming the European Society of Cardiology guidance, sequential dabigatran (2 × 150 mg daily until 80 years old, 2 × 110 mg thereafter) seems to be the most cost-effective alternative for high-risk AF patients. For medium-risk patients, apixaban (2 × 5 mg daily) seems to be somewhat more effective than dabigatran, but dabigatran is still marginally the most cost-effective alternative. In scenario analyses reducing dabigatran from 2 × 150 mg to 2 × 110 mg at the age of 75 years (instead of at age 80), apixaban (2 × 5 mg daily) becomes the most cost-effective alternative for both risk groups. CONCLUSION: We have found apixaban or sequential dabigatran to be the alternatives most likely to be considered cost effective, depending on the switching age for dabigatran. These conclusions are highly sensitive to assumptions made in the analysis.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus other new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Apixaban (5 mg BID), dabigatran (available as 150 mg and 110 mg BID in Europe), and rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily) are 3 novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) currently approved for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of apixaban against other NOACs from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Services. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic impact of apixaban versus other NOACs over a lifetime. Pair-wise indirect treatment comparisons were conducted against other NOACs by using ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation), RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy), and ROCKET-AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial results for the following end points: ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds, myocardial infarction, and treatment discontinuations. Outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life years gained, direct health care costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Apixaban was projected to increase life expectancy versus other NOACs, including dabigatran (both doses) and rivaroxaban. A small increase in therapeutic management costs was observed with apixaban due to projected gains in life expectancy and lower discontinuation rates anticipated on apixaban versus other NOACs through lifetime. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £9611, £4497, and £5305 per quality-adjusted life-year gained with apixaban compared with dabigatran 150 mg BID, dabigatran 110 mg BID, and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily, respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust over a wide range of inputs. CONCLUSIONS: Although our analysis was limited by the absence of head-to-head trials, based on the indirect comparison data available, our model projects that apixaban may be a cost-effective alternative to dabigatran 150 mg BID, dabigatran 110 mg BID, and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily for stroke prevention in AF patients from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Services.

Patients satisfaction with warfarin and willingness to switch to dabigatran: a patient survey.

Warfarin is an anticoagulant medication that is challenging to manage. Dabigatran has been approved by the FDA for stroke and systemic embolism prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation as an alternative to warfarin. Dabigatran does not require routine monitoring, has an established dose, and lacks many of the drug, herbal, and food interactions that afflict warfarin. To evaluate patients' satisfaction with their current warfarin treatment and their opinion on switching to a newly marketed medication (dabigatran) through a brief survey. Two separate surveys were administered to (1) evaluate the patients' opinion of their warfarin therapy and (2) evaluate their thoughts on switching to a newer anticoagulant. Responses were recorded on a rating scale of 1-5; 1 being the least and 5 being the highest. Study was conducted at the Georgia Regents Health System (GRHS) pharmacy-based anticoagulation clinic. Two hundred sixty patients on warfarin treatment were enrolled. Patients expressed high satisfaction with warfarin treatment (4.7 ± 0.78). However, a vast majority of the patients were willing to switch to an agent that: requires less frequent follow-up visits (3.9 ± 1.35); lacks interaction with food and/or beverage (4.1 ± 1.25); is as efficacious as warfarin (3.7 ± 1.38). Patients expressed that out-of-pocket cost would be a major barrier to switch to this new medication (1.3 ± 0.58). Patients are satisfied with their warfarin treatment but willing to consider a new anticoagulant. Cost was highlighted as the most significant barrier. Efficacy, dietary freedom and less frequent visits are the major factors affecting the patients' decision.

Comparison of cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation with dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation across countries.

We did a cost-utility analysis for the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in the German population based on the quality-adjusted life years (QALY), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). The aim of our investigation was to examine cost-utility for current German drug market costs and compared to other countries. Outcome data were taken from dabigatran's RE-LY, rivaroxaban's ROCKET AF, and apixaban's ARISTOTLE trials. A Markov decision model, the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), and further sensitivity analyses were used to simulate comparisons between NOACs over a follow up period of 20 years. The main perspective used for the analyses is from a German public health care insurance perspective. The base-case analyses of a 65 years old person with a CHADS2 score >1 resulted in 7.56-7.64 QALYs gained for warfarin. NOACs added 0.04-0.19 QALYs. Total costs for warfarin ranged from 7622 to 9069 and for NOACs from 19537 to 20048. The sensitivity analysis indicated that current German market costs for the NOACs exceed a willingness-to-pay threshold of (hypothetical) 50000/QALY in all treatment regimen. The MCS showed willingness-to-pay thresholds from 60500/QALY for apixaban to 278000/QALY for dabigatran 110 mg bid, with values for dabigatran 150 mg bid and rivaroxaban in between. In conclusion, from a German public health care insurance perspective current market costs are high in relation to the quality of life gained. These results from clinical studies (efficacy) remain to be confirmed under real life conditions (effectiveness).

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetics-guided warfarin therapy vs. alternative anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation.

Pharmacogenetics-guided warfarin dosing is an alternative to standard clinical algorithms and new oral anticoagulants for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. However, clinical evidence for pharmacogenetics-guided warfarin dosing is limited to intermediary outcomes, and consequently, there is a lack of information on the cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation treatment options. A clinical trial simulation of S-warfarin was used to predict times within therapeutic range for different dosing algorithms. Relative risks of clinical events, obtained from a meta-analysis of trials linking times within therapeutic range with outcomes, served as inputs to an economic analysis. Neither dabigatran nor rivaroxaban were cost-effective options. Along the cost-effectiveness frontier, in relation to clinically dosed warfarin, pharmacogenetics-guided warfarin and apixaban had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £13,226 and £20,671 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. On the basis of our simulations, apixaban appears to be the most cost-effective treatment.

Apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) increases the risk of systemic thromboembolic events; therefore, anticoagulant treatment with vitamin K antagonists is widely prescribed. Recently, new oral anticoagulants (NOAs) directly inhibiting thrombin (dabigatran) or factor Xa (rivaroxaban and apixaban) demonstrated their non-inferiority with respect to warfarin in reducing the thromboembolic risk. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of NOAs in an Italian setting. METHODS: A Markov decision model including ten health states and death was developed, and a 3-month Markov cycle and lifetime horizon were adopted. Transition probabilities and quality of life were estimated from three randomized trials and from additional reports in the literature. Analysis was performed in the context of the Italian National Health System. First- and second-order sensitivity analyses were made to test the robustness of the results. The mean European cost of dabigatran (2.58/day) was assigned to each NOA. RESULTS: The incremental cost-utility ratio was below 25,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for each NOA and each CHADS2 level, but differences among drugs were found. This result was sensitive to the time in (warfarin) therapeutic range and time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that NOAs are a cost-effective treatment for the prevention of stroke in patients with NVAF in the Italian healthcare setting.

Cost-effectiveness of oral anticoagulants for treatment of atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: New anticoagulants may improve health outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation, but it is unclear whether their use is cost-effective. METHODS AND RESULTS: A Markov state transition was created to compare 4 therapies: dabigatran 150 mg BID, apixaban 5 mg BID, rivaroxaban 20 mg QD, and warfarin therapy. The population included those with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation who were eligible for treatment with warfarin. Compared with warfarin, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran, costs were $93 063, $111 465, and $140 557 per additional quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. At a threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year, apixaban provided the greatest absolute benefit while still being cost-effective, although warfarin would be superior if apixaban was 2% less effective than expected. Although apixaban was the optimal strategy in our base case, in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, warfarin was optimal in an equal number of iterations at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: While at a standard cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year, apixaban seems to be the optimal anticoagulation strategy; this finding is sensitive to assumptions about its efficacy and cost. In sensitivity analysis, warfarin seems to be the optimal choice in an equal number of simulations. As a result, although all the novel oral anticoagulants produce greater quality-adjusted life expectancy than warfarin, they may not represent good value for money.