Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives To determine the incremental net health benefits of dabigatran etexilate 110 mg and 150 mg twice daily and warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and to estimate the cost effectiveness of dabigatran in the United Kingdom.Design Quantitative benefit-harm and economic analyses using a discrete event simulation model to extrapolate the findings of the RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy) study to a lifetime horizon.Setting UK National Health Service.Population Cohorts of 50 000 simulated patients at moderate to high risk of stroke with a mean baseline CHADS2 (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age≥75 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke/transient ischaemic attack) score of 2.1.Main outcome measures Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and incremental cost per QALY of dabigatran compared with warfarin.Results Compared with warfarin, low dose and high dose dabigatran were associated with positive incremental net benefits of 0.094 (95% central range −0.083 to 0.267) and 0.146 (−0.029 to 0.322) QALYs. Positive incremental net benefits resulted for high dose dabigatran in 94% of simulations versus warfarin and in 76% of those versus low dose dabigatran. In the economic analysis, high dose dabigatran dominated the low dose, had an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £23 082 (€26 700; $35 800) per QALY gained versus warfarin, and was more cost effective in patients with a baseline CHADS2 score of 3 or above. However, at centres that achieved good control of international normalised ratio, such as those in the UK, dabigatran 150 mg was not cost effective, at £42 386 per QALY gained.Conclusions This analysis supports regulatory decisions that dabigatran offers a positive benefit to harm ratio when compared with warfarin. However, no subgroup for which dabigatran 110 mg offered any clinical or economic advantage over 150 mg was identified. High dose dabigatran will be cost effective only forpatients at increased risk of stroke or for whom international normalised ratio is likely to be less well controlled.

To quantify changes in anticoagulant use in Australia since the introduction of Non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants (NOACs) and to estimate government expenditure. Interrupted-time-series analysis quantifying anticoagulant dispensing, before and after first Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) NOAC listing in August 2009 for venous thromboembolism prevention; and expanded listing for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) in August 2013, up to June 2016. Estimated government expenditure on PBS-listed anticoagulants. PBS dispensing in 10% random sample of Australians, restricted to continuous concessional beneficiaries dispensed oral anticoagulants from July 2005 to June 2016. Total PBS anticoagulant expenditure was calculated using Medicare Australia statistics. Monthly dispensing and initiation of oral anticoagulants (warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran or apixaban). Annual PBS anticoagulant expenditure. An estimated 149,180 concessional beneficiaries were dispensed anticoagulants (100% warfarin) during July 2005. This increased to 292,550 during June 2016, of whom 47.0%, 27.1%, 18.7% and 7.2% were dispensed warfarin, rivaroxaban, apixaban and dabigatran, respectively. Of 16,500 initiated on anticoagulants in June 2016, 24.3%, 38.2%, 30.0% and 7.5% were initiated on warfarin, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran, respectively. Compared to July 2005-July 2013, from August 2013-June 2016, dispensings for all anticoagulants increased by 2,303 dispensings/month (p<0.001, 95%CI = [1,229 3,376]); warfarin dispensing decreased by 1,803 dispensings/month (p<0.001, 95%CI = [-2,606, -1,000]). Total PBS anticoagulant expenditure was $19.5 million (97.0% concessional) in 2008/09, of which 100% was warfarin and $203.3 million (86.2% concessional) in 2015/16, of which 11.2% was warfarin. The introduction of the NOACs led to substantial increases in anticoagulant use and expenditure in Australia.

ObjectivesTo evaluate whether a focused, expert medication management intervention is feasible and potentially effective in preventing anticoagulation-related adverse events for patients transitioning from hospital to home.DesignRandomised, parallel design.SettingMedical wards at six hospital sites in southern Ontario, Canada.ParticipantsAdults 18 years of age or older being discharged to home on an oral anticoagulant (OAC) to be taken for at least 4 weeks.InterventionsClinical pharmacologist-led intervention, including a detailed discharge medication management plan, a circle of care handover and early postdischarge virtual check-up visits to 1 month with 3-month follow-up. The control group received the usual care.Outcomes measuresPrimary outcomes were study feasibility outcomes (recruitment, retention and cost per patient). Secondary outcomes included adverse anticoagulant safety events composite, quality of transitional care, quality of life, anticoagulant knowledge, satisfaction with care, problems with medications and health resource utilisation.ResultsExtensive periods of restriction of recruitment plus difficulties accessing patients at the time of discharge negatively impacted feasibility, especially cost per patient recruited. Of 845 patients screened, 167 were eligible and 56 were randomised. The mean age (±SD) was 71.2±12.5 years, 42.9% females, with two lost to follow-up. Intervention patients were more likely to rate their ability to manage their OAC as improved (17/27 (63.0%) vs 7/22 (31.8%), OR 3.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 12.0)) and their continuity of care as improved (21/27 (77.8%) vs 2/22 (9.1%), OR 35.0 (95% CI 6.3 to 194.2)). Fewer intervention patients were taking one or more inappropriate medications (7 (22.5%) vs 15 (60%), OR 0.19 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.62)).ConclusionThis pilot randomised controlled trial suggests that a transitional care intervention at hospital discharge for older adults taking OACs was well received and potentially effective for some surrogate outcomes, but overly costly to proceed to a definitive large trial.Trial registration number NCT02777047.

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). 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. 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. 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. 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.

We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic-guided dosing of warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the United Kingdom and Sweden. Data from EU-PACT, a randomized controlled trial in newly diagnosed AF patients, were used to model the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by pharmacogenetic-guided warfarin dosing versus standard treatment over a lifetime horizon. Incremental lifetime costs were £26 and 382 Swedish kronor (SEK) and incremental QALYs were 0.0039 and 0.0015 in the United Kingdom and Sweden, respectively. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £6 702 and 253 848 SEK per QALY gained. The ICER was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained in 93% of the simulations in the United Kingdom and below 500 000 SEK in 67% of the simulations in Sweden. Our data suggest that pharmacogenetic-guided dosing of warfarin is a cost-effective strategy to improve outcomes of patients with AF treated with warfarin in the United Kingdom and in Sweden.

Apixaban was shown to be superior to adjusted-dose warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and at least one additional risk factor for stroke, and associated with reduced rates of hemorrhage. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of using apixaban for stroke prevention. Based on the results from the Apixaban Versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial and other published studies, we constructed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus warfarin from the Medicare perspective. The base-case analysis assumed a cohort of 65-year-old patients with a CHADS(2) score of 2.1 and no contraindication to oral anticoagulation. We utilized a 2-week cycle length and a lifetime time horizon. Outcome measures included costs in 2012 US$, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life years saved and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Under base case conditions, quality adjusted life expectancy was 10.69 and 11.16 years for warfarin and apixaban, respectively. Total costs were $94,941 for warfarin and $86,007 for apixaban, demonstrating apixaban to be a dominant economic strategy. Upon one-way sensitivity analysis, these results were sensitive to variability in the drug cost of apixaban and various intracranial hemorrhage related variables. In Monte Carlo simulation, apixaban was a dominant strategy in 57% of 10,000 simulations and cost-effective in 98% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY. In patients with AF and at least one additional risk factor for stroke and a baseline risk of ICH risk of about 0.8%, treatment with apixaban may be a cost-effective alternative to warfarin.

BackgroundEffective management of patients using warfarin is resource-intensive, requiring frequent in-clinic testing of the international normalized ratio (INR). Patient self-testing (PST) using portable at-home INR monitoring devices has emerged as a convenient alternative. As revealed by The Home INR Study (THINRS), event rates for PST were not significantly different from those for in-clinic high-quality anticoagulation management (HQACM), and a cumulative gain in quality of life was observed for patients undergoing PST.ObjectiveTo perform a cost–utility analysis of weekly PST versus monthly HQACM and to examine the sensitivity of these results to testing frequency.Patients/InterventionsIn this study, 2922 patients taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valve, and who demonstrated PST competence, were randomized to either weekly PST (n = 1465) or monthly in-clinic testing (n = 1457). In a sub-study, 234 additional patients were randomized to PST once every 4 weeks (n = 116) or PST twice weekly (n = 118). The endpoints were quality of life (measured by the Health Utilities Index), health care utilization, and costs over 2 years of follow-up.ResultsPST and HQACM participants were similar with regard to gender, age, and CHADS2 score. The total cost per patient over 2 years of follow-up was $32,484 for HQACM and $33,460 for weekly PST, representing a difference of $976. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained with PST once weekly was $5566 (95 % CI, −$11,490 to $25,142). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was sensitive to testing frequency: weekly PST dominated PST twice weekly and once every 4 weeks. Compared to HQACM, weekly PST was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in quality of life. The ICER for weekly PST versus HQACM was well within accepted standards for cost-effectiveness, and was preferred over more or less frequent PST. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses of key assumptions.ConclusionWeekly PST is a cost-effective alternative to monthly HQACM and a preferred testing frequency compared to twice weekly or monthly PST.

Economic evaluation in genomic medicine is an emerging discipline to assess the cost-effectiveness of genome-guided treatment. Here, we developed a pharmaco-economic model to assess whether pharmacogenomic (PGx)-guided warfarin treatment of elderly ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation in Croatia is cost effective compared with non-PGx therapy. The time horizon of the model was set at 1 year. Our primary analysis indicates that 97.07% (95% CI: 94.08-99.34%) of patients belonging to the PGx-guided group have not had any major complications, compared with the control group (89.12%; 95% CI: 84.00-93.87%, p < 0.05). The total cost per patient was estimated at €538.7 (95% CI: €526.3-551.2) for the PGx-guided group versus €219.7 (95% CI: €137.9-304.2) for the control group. In terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, total QALYs was estimated at 0.954 (95% CI: 0.943-0.964) and 0.944 (95% CI: 0.931-0.956) for the PGx-guided and the control groups, respectively. The true difference in QALYs was estimated at 0.01 (95% CI: 0.005-0.015) in favor of the PGx-guided group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the PGx-guided versus the control groups was estimated at €31,225/QALY. Overall, our data indicate that PGx-guided warfarin treatment may represent a cost-effective therapy option for the management of elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who developed ischemic stroke in Croatia. Original submitted 4 June 2014; Revision submitted 12 November 2014

How patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and their clinicians consider cost in forming care plans remains unknown. To identify factors that inform conversations regarding costs of anticoagulants for treatment of AF between patients and clinicians and outcomes associated with these conversations. This cohort study of recorded encounters and participant surveys at 5 US medical centers (including academic, community, and safety-net centers) from the SDM4AFib randomized trial compared standard AF care with and without use of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool. Included patients were considering anticoagulation treatment and were recruited by their clinicians between January 30, 2017, and June 27, 2019. Data were analyzed between August and November 2019. The incidence of and factors associated with cost conversations, and the association of cost conversations with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden and their choice of anticoagulation. A total of 830 encounters (out of 922 enrolled participants) were recorded. Patients' mean (SD) age was 71.0 (10.4) years; 511 patients (61.6%) were men, 704 (86.0%) were White, 303 (40.9%) earned between $40 000 and $99 999 in annual income, and 657 (79.2%) were receiving anticoagulants. Clinicians' mean (SD) age was 44.8 (13.2) years; 75 clinicians (53.2%) were men, and 111 (76%) practiced as physicians, with approximately half (69 [48.9%]) specializing in either internal medicine or cardiology. Cost conversations occurred in 639 encounters (77.0%) and were more likely in the SDM arm (378 [90%] vs 261 [64%]; OR, 9.69; 95% CI, 5.77-16.29). In multivariable analysis, cost conversations were more likely to occur with female clinicians (66 [47%]; OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.21-6.71); consultants vs in-training clinicians (113 [75%]; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.4-11.1); clinicians practicing family medicine (24 [16%]; OR, 12.12; 95% CI, 2.75-53.38]), internal medicine (35 [23%]; OR, 3.82; 95% CI, 1.25-11.70), or other clinicians (21 [14%]; OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 1.32-18.16) when compared with cardiologists; and for patients with an annual household income between $40 000 and $99 999 (249 [82.2%]; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-3.29) compared with income below $40 000 or above $99 999. More patients who had cost conversations reported cost as a factor in their decision (244 [89.1%] vs 327 [69.0%]; OR 3.66; 95% CI, 2.43-5.50), but cost conversations were not associated with the choice of anticoagulation agent. Cost conversations were common, particularly for middle-income patients and with female and consultant-level primary care clinicians, as well as in encounters using an SDM tool; they were associated with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden but not final treatment choice. With increasing costs of care passed on to patients, these findings can inform efforts to promote cost conversations in practice. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

AbstractObjectiveTo compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation.DesignSystematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis.Data sourcesMedline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesPublished randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.Results23 randomised trials involving 94 656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin.ConclusionsThe network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD 42013005324.