Blog
About

152
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    8
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation in the Belgian Healthcare Setting

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Warfarin, an inexpensive drug that has been available for over half a century, has been the mainstay of anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Recently, rivaroxaban, a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) which offers some distinct advantages over warfarin, the standard of care in a world without NOACs, has been introduced and is now recommended by international guidelines.

          Objective

          The aim of this study was to evaluate, from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus use of warfarin for the treatment of patients with non-valvular AF at moderate to high risk.

          Methods

          A Markov model was designed and populated with local cost estimates, safety-on-treatment clinical results from the pivotal phase III ROCKET AF trial and utility values obtained from the literature.

          Results

          Rivaroxaban treatment was associated with fewer ischemic strokes and systemic embolisms (0.308 vs. 0.321 events), intracranial bleeds (0.048 vs. 0.063), and myocardial infarctions (0.082 vs. 0.095) per patient compared with warfarin. Over a lifetime time horizon, rivaroxaban led to a reduction of 0.042 life-threatening events per patient, and increases of 0.111 life-years and 0.094 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus warfarin treatment. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €8,809 per QALY or €7,493 per life-year gained. These results are based on valuated data from 2010. Sensitivity analysis indicated that these results were robust and that rivaroxaban is cost-effective compared with warfarin in 87 % of cases should a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35,000/QALY gained be considered.

          Conclusions

          The present analysis suggests that rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin therapy for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF in the Belgian healthcare setting.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-013-0087-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation.

          Warfarin reduces the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but increases the risk of hemorrhage and is difficult to use. Dabigatran is a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor. In this noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 18,113 patients who had atrial fibrillation and a risk of stroke to receive, in a blinded fashion, fixed doses of dabigatran--110 mg or 150 mg twice daily--or, in an unblinded fashion, adjusted-dose warfarin. The median duration of the follow-up period was 2.0 years. The primary outcome was stroke or systemic embolism. Rates of the primary outcome were 1.69% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 1.53% per year in the group that received 110 mg of dabigatran (relative risk with dabigatran, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.11% per year in the group that received 150 mg of dabigatran (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82; P<0.001 for superiority). The rate of major bleeding was 3.36% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 2.71% per year in the group receiving 110 mg of dabigatran (P=0.003) and 3.11% per year in the group receiving 150 mg of dabigatran (P=0.31). The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.38% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 0.12% per year with 110 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001) and 0.10% per year with 150 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001). The mortality rate was 4.13% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 3.75% per year with 110 mg of dabigatran (P=0.13) and 3.64% per year with 150 mg of dabigatran (P=0.051). In patients with atrial fibrillation, dabigatran given at a dose of 110 mg was associated with rates of stroke and systemic embolism that were similar to those associated with warfarin, as well as lower rates of major hemorrhage. Dabigatran administered at a dose of 150 mg, as compared with warfarin, was associated with lower rates of stroke and systemic embolism but similar rates of major hemorrhage. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262600.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

            The use of warfarin reduces the rate of ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but requires frequent monitoring and dose adjustment. Rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, may provide more consistent and predictable anticoagulation than warfarin. In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 14,264 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were at increased risk for stroke to receive either rivaroxaban (at a daily dose of 20 mg) or dose-adjusted warfarin. The per-protocol, as-treated primary analysis was designed to determine whether rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin for the primary end point of stroke or systemic embolism. In the primary analysis, the primary end point occurred in 188 patients in the rivaroxaban group (1.7% per year) and in 241 in the warfarin group (2.2% per year) (hazard ratio in the rivaroxaban group, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.96; P<0.001 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary end point occurred in 269 patients in the rivaroxaban group (2.1% per year) and in 306 patients in the warfarin group (2.4% per year) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.03; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.12 for superiority). Major and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 1475 patients in the rivaroxaban group (14.9% per year) and in 1449 in the warfarin group (14.5% per year) (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.11; P=0.44), with significant reductions in intracranial hemorrhage (0.5% vs. 0.7%, P=0.02) and fatal bleeding (0.2% vs. 0.5%, P=0.003) in the rivaroxaban group. In patients with atrial fibrillation, rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism. There was no significant between-group difference in the risk of major bleeding, although intracranial and fatal bleeding occurred less frequently in the rivaroxaban group. (Funded by Johnson & Johnson and Bayer; ROCKET AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00403767.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation.

              Vitamin K antagonists are highly effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but have several limitations. Apixaban is a novel oral direct factor Xa inhibitor that has been shown to reduce the risk of stroke in a similar population in comparison with aspirin. In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared apixaban (at a dose of 5 mg twice daily) with warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) in 18,201 patients with atrial fibrillation and at least one additional risk factor for stroke. The primary outcome was ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. The trial was designed to test for noninferiority, with key secondary objectives of testing for superiority with respect to the primary outcome and to the rates of major bleeding and death from any cause. The median duration of follow-up was 1.8 years. The rate of the primary outcome was 1.27% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 1.60% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio with apixaban, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.95; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.01 for superiority). The rate of major bleeding was 2.13% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 3.09% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.80; P<0.001), and the rates of death from any cause were 3.52% and 3.94%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.99; P=0.047). The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.24% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 0.47% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P<0.001), and the rate of ischemic or uncertain type of stroke was 0.97% per year in the apixaban group and 1.05% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.13; P=0.42). In patients with atrial fibrillation, apixaban was superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism, caused less bleeding, and resulted in lower mortality. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; ARISTOTLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00412984.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +32-2-5356394 , +32-2-7251955 , mimi.deruyck@bayer.com
                Journal
                Pharmacoeconomics
                Pharmacoeconomics
                Pharmacoeconomics
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1170-7690
                1179-2027
                13 September 2013
                13 September 2013
                2013
                : 31
                : 909-918
                Affiliations
                [ ]Deloitte Health Economics and Outcomes Research Group, Brussels, Belgium
                [ ]Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                [ ]Laboratory of Neurobiology, Vesalius Research Center, VIB, Leuven, Belgium
                [ ]Experimental Neurology (Department of Neurosciences) and Leuven Research Institute for Neuroscience and Disease (LIND), University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Leuven, Belgium
                [ ]Department of Neurology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                [ ]Mariaziekenhuis Noord-Limburg, Overpelt, Belgium
                [ ]Department of Internal Medicine (Cardiovascular Diseases), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University and Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
                [ ]Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University and Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
                [ ]IMS Health, London, UK
                [ ]Global Market Access/HEOR, Bayer HealthCare, Wuppertal, Germany
                [ ]Market Access Department, Bayer HealthCare, J.E. Mommaertslaan 14, 1831 Diegem (Machelen), Belgium
                Article
                87
                10.1007/s40273-013-0087-9
                3824571
                24030788
                © The Author(s) 2013

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

                Categories
                Original Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

                Economics of health & social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article