Hongtao Wei1, Can Cui1, Xiangli Cui2, Yi Liu1, Dandan Li1. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, 100050, Beijing, China. 2. Department of Pharmacy, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, 100050, Beijing, China. cui10@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new anticoagulants and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The Markov model was constructed to compare patients' quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using drug cost, the cost of the examination after taking a drug, and the incremental cost of other treatments. Both dabigatran (110 and 150 mg, twice a day) and rivaroxaban (20 mg, once a day) were compared with warfarin (3-6 mg, once a day). Willingness to pay, three times the 2018 China GDP per capita (9481.88 $), was the cost-effect threshold in our study. RESULTS: The total cost were was 5317.31$, 29673.33$, 23615.49$, and 34324.91$ for warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran 110 mg bid, and dabigatran 150 mg bid, respectively. The QALYs for each of the four interventions were 11.07 years, 15.46 years, 12.4 years, and 15 years, respectively. The cost-effectiveness analysis of the three new oral anticoagulants and warfarin showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 5548.07$/QALY when rivaroxaban was compared with warfarin. Rivaroxaban was the most cost-effective choice and warfarin was the least. CONCLUSIONS: In Chinese patients with AF, although warfarin is cheaper, rivaroxaban has a better cost-effectiveness advantage from an economic point of view.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new anticoagulants and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The Markov model was constructed to compare patients' quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using drug cost, the cost of the examination after taking a drug, and the incremental cost of other treatments. Both dabigatran (110 and 150 mg, twice a day) and rivaroxaban (20 mg, once a day) were compared with warfarin (3-6 mg, once a day). Willingness to pay, three times the 2018 China GDP per capita (9481.88 $), was the cost-effect threshold in our study. RESULTS: The total cost were was 5317.31$, 29673.33$, 23615.49$, and 34324.91$ for warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran 110 mg bid, and dabigatran 150 mg bid, respectively. The QALYs for each of the four interventions were 11.07 years, 15.46 years, 12.4 years, and 15 years, respectively. The cost-effectiveness analysis of the three new oral anticoagulants and warfarin showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 5548.07$/QALY when rivaroxaban was compared with warfarin. Rivaroxaban was the most cost-effective choice and warfarin was the least. CONCLUSIONS: In Chinese patients with AF, although warfarin is cheaper, rivaroxaban has a better cost-effectiveness advantage from an economic point of view.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chinese population; Cost‐effectiveness; New oral anticoagulants; Warfarin
Authors: Paulus Kirchhof; Stefano Benussi; Dipak Kotecha; Anders Ahlsson; Dan Atar; Barbara Casadei; Manuel Castella; Hans-Christoph Diener; Hein Heidbuchel; Jeroen Hendriks; Gerhard Hindricks; Antonis S Manolis; Jonas Oldgren; Bogdan Alexandru Popescu; Ulrich Schotten; Bart Van Putte; Panagiotis Vardas; Stefan Agewall; John Camm; Gonzalo Baron Esquivias; Werner Budts; Scipione Carerj; Filip Casselman; Antonio Coca; Raffaele De Caterina; Spiridon Deftereos; Dobromir Dobrev; José M Ferro; Gerasimos Filippatos; Donna Fitzsimons; Bulent Gorenek; Maxine Guenoun; Stefan H Hohnloser; Philippe Kolh; Gregory Y H Lip; Athanasios Manolis; John McMurray; Piotr Ponikowski; Raphael Rosenhek; Frank Ruschitzka; Irina Savelieva; Sanjay Sharma; Piotr Suwalski; Juan Luis Tamargo; Clare J Taylor; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Adriaan A Voors; Stephan Windecker; Jose Luis Zamorano; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: Europace Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Chi Zhang; Zhi-Chun Gu; Zheng Ding; Long Shen; Mang-Mang Pan; Ying-Li Zheng; Hou-Wen Lin; Jun Pu Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Gerhard Hindricks; Tatjana Potpara; Nikolaos Dagres; Elena Arbelo; Jeroen J Bax; Carina Blomström-Lundqvist; Giuseppe Boriani; Manuel Castella; Gheorghe-Andrei Dan; Polychronis E Dilaveris; Laurent Fauchier; Gerasimos Filippatos; Jonathan M Kalman; Mark La Meir; Deirdre A Lane; Jean-Pierre Lebeau; Maddalena Lettino; Gregory Y H Lip; Fausto J Pinto; G Neil Thomas; Marco Valgimigli; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Bart P Van Putte; Caroline L Watkins Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Mikko Pyykönen; Miika Linna; Markku Tykkyläinen; Eric Delmelle; Tiina Laatikainen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 2.655