Anne Sig Vestergaard1, Lars Holger Ehlers. 1. Danish Center for Healthcare Improvements, Aalborg University, Fibigerstræde 11, 9220, Aalborg Øst, Denmark, asv@business.aau.dk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2012 the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) published new guidelines on pharmacological stroke prophylaxis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). The health economics of adhering to these guidelines in clinical practice remains to be elucidated. OBJECTIVE: This paper offers a health economic evaluation of two stroke-prophylactic treatment strategies: complete national adherence to the ESC guidelines on stroke prophylaxis in AF versus stroke-prophylactic treatment prior to 2012 in Denmark. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed to compare two treatment strategies. The first strategy reflected national guideline adherence with the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (i.e. dabigatran etexilate), warfarin, and no treatment. The second strategy reflected observed stroke prophylaxis prior to 2012 with the utilization of warfarin, acetylsalicylic acid, and no treatment. A Danish health sector perspective was adopted. A Markov model was designed and populated with information on input parameters from the literature and local cost data reflecting 2014 values. A modeled patient cohort was constructed with a risk profile intended to reflect that of the Danish patient population with AF. The applied outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio amounted to <euro>3557 per QALY for the guideline-adherent treatment strategy (GTS) compared with the pre-2012 treatment strategy. This ratio is below a threshold of <euro>25,000 (£20,000) per QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the result was largely robust to changes in input parameters. All analyses found the GTS to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adherence is a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with the strategy employed prior to 2012 for pharmacological stroke prophylaxis in AF.
BACKGROUND: In 2012 the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) published new guidelines on pharmacological stroke prophylaxis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). The health economics of adhering to these guidelines in clinical practice remains to be elucidated. OBJECTIVE: This paper offers a health economic evaluation of two stroke-prophylactic treatment strategies: complete national adherence to the ESC guidelines on stroke prophylaxis in AF versus stroke-prophylactic treatment prior to 2012 in Denmark. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed to compare two treatment strategies. The first strategy reflected national guideline adherence with the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (i.e. dabigatran etexilate), warfarin, and no treatment. The second strategy reflected observed stroke prophylaxis prior to 2012 with the utilization of warfarin, acetylsalicylic acid, and no treatment. A Danish health sector perspective was adopted. A Markov model was designed and populated with information on input parameters from the literature and local cost data reflecting 2014 values. A modeled patient cohort was constructed with a risk profile intended to reflect that of the Danish patient population with AF. The applied outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio amounted to <euro>3557 per QALY for the guideline-adherent treatment strategy (GTS) compared with the pre-2012 treatment strategy. This ratio is below a threshold of <euro>25,000 (£20,000) per QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the result was largely robust to changes in input parameters. All analyses found the GTS to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adherence is a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with the strategy employed prior to 2012 for pharmacological stroke prophylaxis in AF.
Authors: Robby Nieuwlaat; Alessandro Capucci; Gregory Y H Lip; S Bertil Olsson; Martin H Prins; Fred H Nieman; José López-Sendón; Panos E Vardas; Etienne Aliot; Massimo Santini; Harry J G M Crijns Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2006-05-26 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Craig I Coleman; Andrew D Straznitskas; Diana M Sobieraj; Jeffrey Kluger; Moise W Anglade Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jonas Bjerring Olesen; Gregory Y H Lip; Jesper Lindhardsen; Deirdre A Lane; Ole Ahlehoff; Morten Lock Hansen; Jakob Raunsø; Janne Schurmann Tolstrup; Peter Riis Hansen; Gunnar Hilmar Gislason; Christian Torp-Pedersen Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: Robert G Hart; Hans-Christoph Diener; Sean Yang; Stuart J Connolly; Lars Wallentin; Paul A Reilly; Michael D Ezekowitz; Salim Yusuf Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Sonja V Sorensen; Sarah Dewilde; Daniel E Singer; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Brigitta U Monz; Jonathan M Plumb Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Paulus Kirchhof; Bettina Ammentorp; Harald Darius; Raffaele De Caterina; Jean-Yves Le Heuzey; Richard John Schilling; Josef Schmitt; Jose Luis Zamorano Journal: Europace Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Faye L Norby; Pamela L Lutsey; Nathan D Shippee; Lin Y Chen; Carrie Henning-Smith; Alvaro Alonso; Rob F Walker; Aaron R Folsom Journal: Am J Cardiovasc Drugs Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: A John Camm; Gabriele Accetta; Giuseppe Ambrosio; Dan Atar; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Eivind Berge; Frank Cools; David A Fitzmaurice; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Shinya Goto; Sylvia Haas; Gloria Kayani; Yukihiro Koretsune; Lorenzo G Mantovani; Frank Misselwitz; Seil Oh; Alexander G G Turpie; Freek W A Verheugt; Ajay K Kakkar Journal: Heart Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Peter Bo Poulsen; Søren Paaske Johnsen; Morten Lock Hansen; Axel Brandes; Steen Husted; Louise Harboe; Lars Dybro Journal: Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2017-10-13
Authors: Sabine Michelsen Raunbak; Anne Sig Sørensen; Louise Hansen; Flemming Skjøth; Torben Bjerregaard Larsen; Lars Holger Ehlers Journal: Pharmacoecon Open Date: 2022-06-05