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: 17.81). 11/2010; 154(1):1-11. DOI: 10.1059/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00289
Source: PubMed


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,

Click to see the full-text of:

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

0 B

See full-text
  • Source
    • "As stroke has a devastating economic impact, with an estimated lifetime cost per-person of more than $100,000 [30], stroke prevention is an economic priority. Dabigatran is a cost-effective first-line therapy for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with AF; and is particularly cost-effective among patients with poor INR control and high baseline risk of stroke [31] [32] [33]. Thus, in the diabetic population, dabigatran may have an even more favorable cost-effectiveness than in the general AF population because of the higher absolute stroke risk reduction observed in our analysis. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is frequent among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The RE-LY trial permits evaluation of patient characteristics, outcomes and the effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate among diabetic individuals. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared between diabetic and non-diabetic patients and the relative efficacy of each dose of dabigatran (150mg bid and 110mg bid) versus warfarin was evaluated. Of 18,113 patients in RE-LY, 4221 patients (23.3%) had DM. Patients with DM were younger (70.9 vs. 71.7years), more likely to have hypertension (86.6% vs. 76.5%), coronary artery disease (37.4% vs. 24.9%) and peripheral vascular disease (5.6% vs. 3.2%); (all p<0.01). Time in therapeutic range for warfarin-treated patients was 65% for diabetic versus 68% for non-diabetic patients (p<0.001). Regardless of assigned treatment, stroke or systemic embolism was more common among patients with DM (1.9% per year vs. 1.3% per year, p<0.001). DM was also associated with an increased risk of death (5.1% per year vs. 3.5% per year, p<0.001) and major bleeding (4.2% per year vs. 3.0% per year, p<0.001). The absolute reduction in stroke or systemic embolism with dabigatran compared to warfarin was greater among patients with DM than those without DM (dabigatran 110mg: 0.59% per year vs. 0.05% per year; dabigatran 150mg: 0.89% per year vs. 0.51% per year). Compared to non-DM patients, AF patients with DM derive a greater absolute risk reduction in embolic events when treated with dabigatran. Identifier: NCT00262600. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
    International Journal of Cardiology 05/2015; 196. DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.05.141 · 4.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Dabigatran is ten times more expensive than warfarin [56,57], although the higher cost could be offset by a reduction in secondary stroke risks and associated treatment cost, and absence of INR monitoring, which is required for warfarin users. However, as these cost evaluations did not compare dabigatran against warfarin pharmacogenetic protocols [58] it is still unclear whether dabigatran is indeed more cost-effective than warfarin [56]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Personalized Medicine has the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce the cost of care; however its adoption has been slow in Canada. Bridgepoint Health is a complex continuous care provider striving to reduce the burden of polypharmacy in chronic patients. The main goal of the study was to explore the feasibility of utilizing personalized medicine in the treatment of chronic complex patients as a preliminary institutional health technology assessment. We analyzed stroke treatment optimization as a clinical indication that could serve as a “proof of concept” for the widespread implementation of pharmacogenetics. The objectives of the study were three-fold: 1. Review current practice in medication administration for stroke treatment at Bridgepoint Health 2. Critically analyze evidence that pharmacogenetic testing could (or could not) enhance drug selection and treatment efficacy for stroke patients; 3. Assess the cost-benefit potential of a pharmacogenetic intervention for stroke. Review current practice in medication administration for stroke treatment at Bridgepoint Health Critically analyze evidence that pharmacogenetic testing could (or could not) enhance drug selection and treatment efficacy for stroke patients; Assess the cost-benefit potential of a pharmacogenetic intervention for stroke. We conducted a review of stroke treatment practices at Bridgepoint Health, scanned the literature for drug-gene and drug-outcome interactions, and evaluated the potential consequences of pharmacogenetic testing using the ACCE model. There is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that pharmacogenetic stratification of stroke treatment can improve patient outcomes in the long-term, and provide substantial efficiencies for the healthcare system in the short-term. Specifically, pharmacogenetic stratification of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies for stroke patients may have a major impact on the risk of disease recurrence, and thus should be explored further for clinical application. Bridgepoint Health, and other healthcare institutions taking this path, should consider launching pilot projects to assess the practical impact of pharmacogenetics to optimize treatment for chronic continuous care.
    Clinical and Translational Medicine 12/2013; 2(1):16. DOI:10.1186/2001-1326-2-16
  • Source
    • "According to event probabilities [16,17,28,29], patients move into the Markov model through the following health states: no major event, major hemorrhagic event, major thromboembolic event, and death (Figure  2). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common form of heart arrhythmia and a leading cause of stroke and systemic embolism. Chronic anticoagulation is recommended for preventing those complications. Our study aimed to compare the cost/utility (CU) of three main anticoagulation options: 1) standard warfarin dosing (SD-W) 2) warfarin dosage under the guidance of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotyping (GT-W) and 3) dabigatran 150 mg twice a day. A Markov state transition model was built to simulate the expected C/U of dabigatran, SD-W and GT-W anticoagulation therapy for the prevention of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation over a period of 5 years under the perspective of the public health care system. Model inputs were derived from extensive literature search and government's data bases. Outcomes considered were the number of total major events (thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events), total costs in Canadian dollars (1CAD$ = 1$US), total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs/QALYs and incremental costs/QALYs gained (ICUR). Raw base case results show that SD-W has the lowest C/U ratio. However, the dabigatran option might be considered as an alternative, as its cost per additional QALY gained compared to SD-W is CAD $ 4 765, i.e. less than 50 000, the ICUR threshold generally accepted to adopt an intervention. At the same threshold, GT-W doesn't appear to be an alternative to SD-W. Our results were robust to one-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses. SD-W has the lowest C/U ratio among the 3 options. However, dabigatran might be considered as an alternative. GT-W is not C/U and should not currently be recommended for the routine anticoagulotherapy management of AF patients.
    Thrombosis Journal 07/2013; 11(1):14. DOI:10.1186/1477-9560-11-14 · 1.31 Impact Factor
Show more