Cargando…
Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US
BACKGROUND: Understanding the value of new anticoagulation therapies compared with existing therapies is of paramount importance in today’s cost-conscious and efficiency-driven health care environment. Edoxaban and rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4881922/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27284259 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S98888 |
_version_ | 1782434040798773248 |
---|---|
author | Miller, Jeffrey D Ye, Xin Lenhart, Gregory M Farr, Amanda M Tran, Oth V Kwong, W Jackie Magnuson, Elizabeth A Weintraub, William S |
author_facet | Miller, Jeffrey D Ye, Xin Lenhart, Gregory M Farr, Amanda M Tran, Oth V Kwong, W Jackie Magnuson, Elizabeth A Weintraub, William S |
author_sort | Miller, Jeffrey D |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Understanding the value of new anticoagulation therapies compared with existing therapies is of paramount importance in today’s cost-conscious and efficiency-driven health care environment. Edoxaban and rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with CHADS(2) scores ≥2 have been evaluated in pivotal trials versus warfarin. The relative value of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban would be of interest to health care stakeholders and patients who prefer a once-daily treatment option for long-term stroke prevention in NVAF. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of two once-daily regimens of novel oral anticoagulation therapy – edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) versus rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) – for stroke prevention in NVAF patients from a US health-plan perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model simulated lifetime risk and treatment of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death in NVAF patients treated with edoxaban or rivaroxaban. Efficacy and safety data were derived from a network meta-analysis that utilized data from patients enrolled in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 and ROCKET-AF. Health care cost and utility data were obtained from published sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of <US$50,000, $50,000–$150,000, and >$150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used as thresholds for “highly cost-effective”, “cost-effective”, and “not cost-effective” treatment options, respectively, as per American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. RESULTS: Edoxaban was dominant relative to rivaroxaban, such that it was associated with lower total health care costs and better effectiveness in terms of QALYs in the base-case analysis. Results were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analyses that showed edoxaban as either dominant or a highly cost-effective alternative (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000) to rivaroxaban in 88.4% of 10,000 simulations. CONCLUSION: Results of this study showed that the once-daily edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) regimen is a cost-saving or highly cost-effective treatment relative to rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) for stroke prevention in NVAF patients with CHADS(2) ≥2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4881922 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Dove Medical Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48819222016-06-09 Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US Miller, Jeffrey D Ye, Xin Lenhart, Gregory M Farr, Amanda M Tran, Oth V Kwong, W Jackie Magnuson, Elizabeth A Weintraub, William S Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Original Research BACKGROUND: Understanding the value of new anticoagulation therapies compared with existing therapies is of paramount importance in today’s cost-conscious and efficiency-driven health care environment. Edoxaban and rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with CHADS(2) scores ≥2 have been evaluated in pivotal trials versus warfarin. The relative value of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban would be of interest to health care stakeholders and patients who prefer a once-daily treatment option for long-term stroke prevention in NVAF. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of two once-daily regimens of novel oral anticoagulation therapy – edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) versus rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) – for stroke prevention in NVAF patients from a US health-plan perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model simulated lifetime risk and treatment of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death in NVAF patients treated with edoxaban or rivaroxaban. Efficacy and safety data were derived from a network meta-analysis that utilized data from patients enrolled in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 and ROCKET-AF. Health care cost and utility data were obtained from published sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of <US$50,000, $50,000–$150,000, and >$150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used as thresholds for “highly cost-effective”, “cost-effective”, and “not cost-effective” treatment options, respectively, as per American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. RESULTS: Edoxaban was dominant relative to rivaroxaban, such that it was associated with lower total health care costs and better effectiveness in terms of QALYs in the base-case analysis. Results were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analyses that showed edoxaban as either dominant or a highly cost-effective alternative (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000) to rivaroxaban in 88.4% of 10,000 simulations. CONCLUSION: Results of this study showed that the once-daily edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) regimen is a cost-saving or highly cost-effective treatment relative to rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) for stroke prevention in NVAF patients with CHADS(2) ≥2. Dove Medical Press 2016-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4881922/ /pubmed/27284259 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S98888 Text en © 2016 Miller et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Miller, Jeffrey D Ye, Xin Lenhart, Gregory M Farr, Amanda M Tran, Oth V Kwong, W Jackie Magnuson, Elizabeth A Weintraub, William S Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US |
title | Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US |
title_full | Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US |
title_fullStr | Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US |
title_short | Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (nvaf) in the us |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4881922/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27284259 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S98888 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT millerjeffreyd costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus AT yexin costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus AT lenhartgregorym costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus AT farramandam costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus AT tranothv costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus AT kwongwjackie costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus AT magnusonelizabetha costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus AT weintraubwilliams costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus |