Cost‐Effectiveness of High‐Dose Edoxaban Compared with Adjusted‐Dose Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Non–Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients

Abstract

High-dose edoxaban appears to be an economically dominant strategy when compared with adjusted-dose warfarin for the prevention of stroke in NVAF patients with a Clcr of 15-95 ml/minute and an appreciable risk of stroke.

Direct oral anticoagulant considerations in solid organ transplantation: A review

“…2 Analyses for each of the DOACs found similar results. 6 Despite these proposed clinical and economic benefits, there are insufficient data regarding the use of DOACs in selected patient populations.…”

“…2 Currently available DOACs have a fast onset of action, with no requirement to bridge patients upon initiation for the prevention of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The shorter half-life of DOACs of approximately 8–18 hours depends on the agent and health status of the recipient, and therefore, their quick offset of therapeutic effects allows for greater ease in planning elective surgeries based on estimated half-lives in specialized patient populations (Tables 2 and 3).…”

Systematic review of societal costs associated with stroke, bleeding and monitoring in atrial fibrillation

“…One meeting abstract was identified from International Society of Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research and one study from manual searches met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, resulting in 186 total publications (159 unique studies) with direct costs, resource use and/or indirect costs. Among the 186 publications, 15 reported indirect costs (14 unique studies and one related publication reporting on the same study population) [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. Study attrition through the abstract and full-text screening levels are detailed in the PRISMA diagram in Figure 1.…”

“…Among the 14 indirect cost studies, eight were observational [34][35][36]39,41,43,44,47] and six were model-based, including economic evaluations or retrospective cost-of-illness studies based on published estimates reporting indirect cost inputs for their economic models [37,38,40,42,45,46]. Among the observational studies, two each were conducted in Denmark and Ireland and one each in the UK, Russia, Mexico and India.…”

“…The SLR identified eight studies (nine publications) [34][35][36][37]40,[45][46][47]50], four of which were observational [34][35][36]47,50], reporting indirect costs associated with INR monitoring among patients with AF. The other four studies included two CEAs [40,45], a cost-of-illness study [37], and a budget impact model [46]. Two studies were conducted in the USA, and one each in the UK [51], Mexico [52], Ireland [46], Russia [36,50], Denmark [46] and Sweden [37].…”