New anticoagulant drugs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation: economic evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis

Abstract

Health care resources available for medical procedures, including pharmaceuticals, are limited worldwide. Health economic evidence is now accepted as an essential component of health technology appraisal, realizing the importance of value for money considerations for a more efficient (cost-effective) prescribing. Regulatory agencies in more and more countries perform economic evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis in order to decide about reimbursement of a new and almost always more expensive drug. Pharmacoeconomy is now acknowledged as a science. Cost-effective analysis is just one of its approaches, measuring cost in money and benefit in terms of Quality Adjusted Life Year, a new outcome measure which combines quantity/quality of additional life-years gained with the new drug/technology. A growing body of pharmacoeconomic evidence about new anticoagulant drugs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation is now available. Most of this evidence comes from the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom, the most referenced regulatory agency in the world. Compared to current standard therapies (warfarin), dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban are cost-effective treatments for the whole population of patients with atrial fibrillation, independently of poor/good international normalized ratio control (time in therapeutic range) and risk stratification for stroke (CHADS2 score). Significant innovation and the lower rate of intracranial hemorrhage/hemorrhagic stroke coupled with the new drugs are the key drivers of these results.

A geospatial model to determine the spatial cost-efficiency of anticoagulation drug therapy: Patients’ perspective

“…Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) became available as an alternative to warfarin during the past decade. Clinical trials have shown that the efficacy of DOACs is similar to warfarin (Connolly et al, 2009;Granger et al, 2011;Patel et al, 2011), while the advantage is that these drugs prevent thromboembolic complications without regular monitoring (Silingardi, 2013). DOACs have significantly less adverse interaction with food and drugs than warfarin, which allows fixed dosing (Testa et al, 2012).…”