Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban versus Acenocoumarol in the Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation in Spain

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate, from the Spanish National Health System perspective, the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban (20 mg/day) versus use of acenocoumarol (5 mg/day) for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) at moderate to high risk for stroke. Methods: A Markov model was designed and populated with local cost estimates, efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in stroke prevention in NVAF compared with adjusted-dose warfarin clinical results from the pivotal phase III ROCKET AF trial and utility values obtained from the literature. Warfarin and acenocoumarol were assumed to have therapeutic equivalence. Results: Rivaroxaban treatment was associated with fewer ischemic strokes and systemic embolisms (0.289 vs. 0.300 events), intracranial bleeds (0.051 vs. 0.067), and myocardial infarctions (0.088 vs. 0.102) per patient compared with acenocoumarol. Over a lifetime time horizon, rivaroxaban led to a reduction of 0.041 life-threatening events per patient, and increases of 0.103 life-years and 0.155 quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs) versus acenocoumarol treatment. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7045 per QALY and €10 602 per life-year gained. Sensitivity analysis indicated that these results were robust and that rivaroxaban is cost-effective compared with acenocoumarol in 89.4% of cases should a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30 000/QALY gained be considered. Conclusions: The present analysis suggests that rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to acenocoumarol therapy for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolisms in patients with NVAF in the Spanish healthcare setting.