OBJECTIVE: Dabigatran was the first of a new generation of anticoagulation drugs for the indication of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) to be approved. Evidence show that dabigatran 150 mg twice daily significantly reduces the risk of stroke and systemic embolism (RR = 0.65; p < 0.001) and shows a comparable rate of major bleedings (RR = 0.93; p = 0.32), whereas dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was associated with a comparable rate of stroke and systemic embolism (RR = 0.90; p = 0.30) and a significantly lower rate of major bleedings compared to warfarin treatment (RR = 0.80; p = 0.003). The purpose is to review current economic evaluations of these alternatives for healthcare professionals to include these findings in their decision-making. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified 43 economic evaluations, of which 10 were included and evaluated according to the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC-list) and the Oxford model. RESULTS: Six economic evaluations concluded that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to warfarin. One evaluation concluded the same except when quality in warfarin treatment was excellent, with a mean time in therapeutic range (TTR) > 73%. Three evaluations concluded that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to warfarin in patient sub-groups; TTR ≤ 64%, congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (CHADS2 score) ≥3, or a CHADS2 score = 2 unless international normalized ratio (INR) control was excellent, and with high risk of stroke or in a low-quality warfarin treatment. Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was in general dominated by dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. LIMITATIONS: The evaluations were not fully homogeneous, as some did not include loss of productivity, costs of dyspepsia, and annual costs of dabigatran patient management. CONCLUSIONS: In the majority of the economic evaluations, dabigatran is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin treatment. In some evaluations dabigatran is only cost-effective in sub-groups, such as patients with a low TTR-value in warfarin treatment and a CHADS2 score ≥2.
OBJECTIVE:Dabigatran was the first of a new generation of anticoagulation drugs for the indication of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) to be approved. Evidence show that dabigatran 150 mg twice daily significantly reduces the risk of stroke and systemic embolism (RR = 0.65; p < 0.001) and shows a comparable rate of major bleedings (RR = 0.93; p = 0.32), whereas dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was associated with a comparable rate of stroke and systemic embolism (RR = 0.90; p = 0.30) and a significantly lower rate of major bleedings compared to warfarin treatment (RR = 0.80; p = 0.003). The purpose is to review current economic evaluations of these alternatives for healthcare professionals to include these findings in their decision-making. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified 43 economic evaluations, of which 10 were included and evaluated according to the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC-list) and the Oxford model. RESULTS: Six economic evaluations concluded that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to warfarin. One evaluation concluded the same except when quality in warfarin treatment was excellent, with a mean time in therapeutic range (TTR) > 73%. Three evaluations concluded that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to warfarin in patient sub-groups; TTR ≤ 64%, congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (CHADS2 score) ≥3, or a CHADS2 score = 2 unless international normalized ratio (INR) control was excellent, and with high risk of stroke or in a low-quality warfarin treatment. Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was in general dominated by dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. LIMITATIONS: The evaluations were not fully homogeneous, as some did not include loss of productivity, costs of dyspepsia, and annual costs of dabigatranpatient management. CONCLUSIONS: In the majority of the economic evaluations, dabigatran is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin treatment. In some evaluations dabigatran is only cost-effective in sub-groups, such as patients with a low TTR-value in warfarin treatment and a CHADS2 score ≥2.
Authors: James V Freeman; Ruo P Zhu; Douglas K Owens; Alan M Garber; David W Hutton; Alan S Go; Paul J Wang; Mintu P Turakhia Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jonas Oldgren; Marco Alings; Harald Darius; Hans-Christoph Diener; John Eikelboom; Michael D Ezekowitz; Gabriel Kamensky; Paul A Reilly; Sean Yang; Salim Yusuf; Lars Wallentin; Stuart J Connolly Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: S V Sorensen; A R Kansal; S Connolly; S Peng; J Linnehan; C Bradley-Kennedy; J M Plumb Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: Bhavani Shankara Bagepally; Usa Chaikledkaew; Yogesh Krishnarao Gurav; Thunyarat Anothaisintawee; Sitaporn Youngkong; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk; Mark McEvoy; John Attia; Ammarin Thakkinstian Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2020-07