Naoual Bennaghmouch1, Anne J W M de Veer1, Bakhtawar K Mahmoodi1, Mireia Jofre-Bonet2, Gregory Y H Lip3, Kerstin Bode4, Jurriën M Ten Berg1. 1. Department of Cardiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, CM Nieuwegein, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Economics, City University of London, Northampton Square, London, UK. 3. Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK. 4. Heart Center, University of Leipzig, Strümpellstraße 39, Leipzig, Germany.
Abstract
AIMS: Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have consistently demonstrated superior efficacy in terms of stroke prevention and safety in terms of bleeding over vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential use of NOACs in AF patients requiring antiplatelet therapy (APT) has only been assessed in small meta-analyses reporting consistent benefits of NOACs over VKAs. However, the prescription costs of NOACs are higher than those of VKAs. The aim of his study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of NOACs compared to VKAs in patients with non-valvular AF also requiring APT with the Dutch healthcare system used as a surrogate of many European healthcare systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: A decision tree was constructed to analyse the CE of NOACs compared to VKAs in patients with non-valvular AF with an indication for APT over a horizon of 1 year. Beside the base-case analysis, univariate probabilistic sensitivity and two sensitivity analyses were performed: first, we assessed the impact of VKA home monitoring; second, we varied the NOACs price assuming patent expiration. Use of NOACs instead of VKA is associated with a health gain of 0.0171 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and with an incremental cost of €357, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €20 919, which is almost equal to the generally accepted CE threshold of €20 000 used in the Netherlands. The probability that NOACs are cost-effective at a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000 per QALY was 50%. Introducing home monitoring increased VKAs costs so much that NOACs became the dominant option (less costly and more effective). Price drops associated to patent expiration of NOACs increased its CE. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that the use of NOACs is a cost-effective alternative of VKAs in patients with AF needing APT. Our findings in the Netherlands healthcare system are probably consistent with other European populations. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have consistently demonstrated superior efficacy in terms of stroke prevention and safety in terms of bleeding over vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential use of NOACs in AFpatients requiring antiplatelet therapy (APT) has only been assessed in small meta-analyses reporting consistent benefits of NOACs over VKAs. However, the prescription costs of NOACs are higher than those of VKAs. The aim of his study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of NOACs compared to VKAs in patients with non-valvular AF also requiring APT with the Dutch healthcare system used as a surrogate of many European healthcare systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: A decision tree was constructed to analyse the CE of NOACs compared to VKAs in patients with non-valvular AF with an indication for APT over a horizon of 1 year. Beside the base-case analysis, univariate probabilistic sensitivity and two sensitivity analyses were performed: first, we assessed the impact of VKA home monitoring; second, we varied the NOACs price assuming patent expiration. Use of NOACs instead of VKA is associated with a health gain of 0.0171 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and with an incremental cost of €357, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €20 919, which is almost equal to the generally accepted CE threshold of €20 000 used in the Netherlands. The probability that NOACs are cost-effective at a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000 per QALY was 50%. Introducing home monitoring increased VKAs costs so much that NOACs became the dominant option (less costly and more effective). Price drops associated to patent expiration of NOACs increased its CE. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that the use of NOACs is a cost-effective alternative of VKAs in patients with AF needing APT. Our findings in the Netherlands healthcare system are probably consistent with other European populations. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.