Cost-Effectiveness of Dabigatran Compared With Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

Stanford University School of Medicine, California, USA.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 11/2010; 154(1):1-11. DOI: 10.1059/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00289
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Warfarin reduces the risk for ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) but increases the risk for hemorrhage. Dabigatran is a fixed-dose, oral direct thrombin inhibitor with similar or reduced rates of ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage in patients with AF compared with those of warfarin.
To estimate the quality-adjusted survival, costs, and cost-effectiveness of dabigatran compared with adjusted-dose warfarin for preventing ischemic stroke in patients 65 years or older with nonvalvular AF.
Markov decision model.
The RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy) trial and other published studies of anticoagulation. The cost of dabigatran was estimated on the basis of pricing in the United Kingdom.
Patients aged 65 years or older with nonvalvular AF and risk factors for stroke (CHADS₂ score ≥1 or equivalent) and no contraindications to anticoagulation.
Warfarin anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0); dabigatran, 110 mg twice daily (low dose); and dabigatran, 150 mg twice daily (high dose).
Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (in 2008 U.S. dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
The quality-adjusted life expectancy was 10.28 QALYs with warfarin, 10.70 QALYs with low-dose dabigatran, and 10.84 QALYs with high-dose dabigatran. Total costs were $143 193 for warfarin, $164 576 for low-dose dabigatran, and $168 398 for high-dose dabigatran. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with warfarin were $51 229 per QALY for low-dose dabigatran and $45 372 per QALY for high-dose dabigatran.
The model was sensitive to the cost of dabigatran but was relatively insensitive to other model inputs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio increased to $50 000 per QALY at a cost of $13.70 per day for high-dose dabigatran but remained less than $85 000 per QALY over the full range of model inputs evaluated. The cost-effectiveness of high-dose dabigatran improved with increasing risk for stroke and intracranial hemorrhage.
Event rates were largely derived from a single randomized clinical trial and extrapolated to a 35-year time frame from clinical trials with approximately 2-year follow-up.
In patients aged 65 years or older with nonvalvular AF at increased risk for stroke (CHADS₂ score ≥1 or equivalent), dabigatran may be a cost-effective alternative to warfarin depending on pricing in the United States.
American Heart Association and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Service.

Download full-text


Available from: Mintu P Turakhia, Jun 21, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The utility value attributed to taking pills for prevention can have a major effect on the cost-effectiveness of interventions, but few published studies have systematically quantified this value. We sought to quantify the utility value of taking pills used for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Cross-sectional survey. Central North Carolina. 708 healthcare employees aged 18 years and older. Utility values for taking 1 pill/day, assessed using time trade-off, modified standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods. Mean age of respondents was 43 years (19-74). The majority of the respondents were female (83%) and Caucasian (80%). Most (80%) took at least 2 pills/day. Mean utility values for taking 1 pill/day using the time trade-off method were: 0.9972 (95% CI 0.9962 to 0.9980). Values derived from the standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods were 0.9967 (0.9954 to 0.9979) and 0.9989 (95% CI 0.9986 to 0.9991), respectively. Utility values varied little across characteristics such as age, sex, race, education level or number of pills taken per day. The utility value of taking pills daily in order to prevent an adverse CVD health outcome is approximately 0.997. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to
    BMJ Open 05/2015; 5(5):e006505. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006505 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hospital costs associated with atrial fibrillation (AFib) among patients with stroke have not been well-studied, especially among people aged <65 years. We estimated the AFib-associated hospital costs in US patients aged 18 to 64 years. We identified hospital admissions with a primary diagnosis of ischemic stroke from the 2010 to 2012 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters inpatient data sets, excluding those with capitated health insurance plans, aged <18 or >64 years, missing geographic region, hospital costs below the 1st or above 99th percentile, and having carotid intervention (n=40 082). We searched the data for AFib and analyzed the costs for nonrepeat and repeat stroke admissions separately. We estimated the AFib-associated costs using multivariate regression models controlling for age, sex, geographic region, and Charlson comorbidity index. Of the 33 500 nonrepeat stroke admissions, 2407 (7.2%) had AFib. Admissions with AFib cost $4991 more than those without AFib ($23 770 versus $18 779). For the 6582 repeat stroke admissions, 397 (6.0%) had AFib. The costs were $3260 more for those with AFib than those without ($24 119 versus $20 929). After controlling for potential confounders, AFib-associated costs for nonrepeat stroke admissions were $4905, representing 20.6% of the total costs for the admissions. Both the hospital costs and the AFib-associated costs were associated with age, but not with sex. AFib-associated costs for repeat stroke admissions were not significantly higher than for non-AFib patients, except for those aged 55 to 64 years ($3537). AFib increased the hospital cost of ischemic stroke substantially. Further investigation on AFib-associated costs for repeat stroke admissions is needed. © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.
    Stroke 04/2015; 46(5). DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.008563 · 6.02 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose To project and compare the lifetime health benefits, health care costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness of a decision rule based on assessment of cerebrovascular reserve (CVR) compared with medical therapy and immediate revascularization in asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis for prevention of stroke. Materials and Methods The three strategies compared included immediate revascularization (carotid endarterectomy) and ongoing medical therapy (with antiplatelet, statin, and antihypertensive agents plus lifestyle modification), medical therapy-based treatment with revascularization only for patients who progressed, and use of a CVR-based decision rule for treatment in which patients with CVR impairment undergo immediate revascularization and all others receive medical therapy. A decision analytic model was developed to project lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for asymptomatic patients with carotid stenosis with 70%-89% carotid luminal narrowing at presentation. Risks of clinical events, costs, and quality-of-life values were estimated on the basis of those in published sources. The analysis was conducted from a health care system perspective, with health and cost outcomes discounted at 3%. Results Total costs per person and lifetime QALYs were lowest for the medical therapy-based strategy ($14 597, 9.848 QALYs), followed by CVR testing ($16 583, 9.934 QALYs) and immediate revascularization ($20 950, 9.940 QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the CVR-based strategy compared with the medical therapy-based strategy was $23 000 per QALY and for the immediate revascularization versus the CVR-based strategy was $760 000 per QALY. Results were sensitive to variations in model inputs for revascularization costs and complication risks and baseline stroke risk. Conclusion CVR testing can be a cost-effective tool to identify asymptomatic patients with carotid stenosis who are most likely to benefit from revascularization. © RSNA, 2014 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
    Radiology 09/2014; 274(2):140501. DOI:10.1148/radiol.14140501 · 6.21 Impact Factor

Similar Publications