Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US

Jeffrey D Miller,1 Xin Ye,2 Gregory M Lenhart,1 Amanda M Farr,1 Oth V Tran,1 W Jackie Kwong,2 Elizabeth A Magnuson,3 William S Weintraub41Truven Health Analytics Inc, Cambridge, MA, 2Daiichi Sankyo Inc, Parsippany, NJ, 3St Luke Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO, 4Center for Heart and Vasc...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Miller JD, Ye X, Lenhart GM, Farr AM, Tran OV, Kwong WJ, Magnuson EA, Weintraub WS
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Dove Medical Press 2016-05-01
Series:ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.dovepress.com/cost-effectiveness-of-edoxaban-versus-rivaroxaban-for-stroke-preventio-peer-reviewed-article-CEOR
_version_ 1828531914899718144
author Miller JD
Ye X
Lenhart GM
Farr AM
Tran OV
Kwong WJ
Magnuson EA
Weintraub WS
author_facet Miller JD
Ye X
Lenhart GM
Farr AM
Tran OV
Kwong WJ
Magnuson EA
Weintraub WS
author_sort Miller JD
collection DOAJ
description Jeffrey D Miller,1 Xin Ye,2 Gregory M Lenhart,1 Amanda M Farr,1 Oth V Tran,1 W Jackie Kwong,2 Elizabeth A Magnuson,3 William S Weintraub41Truven Health Analytics Inc, Cambridge, MA, 2Daiichi Sankyo Inc, Parsippany, NJ, 3St Luke Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO, 4Center for Heart and Vascular Health, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, DE, USABackground: Understanding the value of new anticoagulation therapies compared with existing therapies is of paramount importance in today’s cost-conscious and efficiency-driven health care environment. Edoxaban and rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with CHADS2 scores ≥2 have been evaluated in pivotal trials versus warfarin. The relative value of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban would be of interest to health care stakeholders and patients who prefer a once-daily treatment option for long-term stroke prevention in NVAF.Objective: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of two once-daily regimens of novel oral anticoagulation therapy – edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) versus rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) – for stroke prevention in NVAF patients from a US health-plan perspective.Materials and methods: A Markov model simulated lifetime risk and treatment of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death in NVAF patients treated with edoxaban or rivaroxaban. Efficacy and safety data were derived from a network meta-analysis that utilized data from patients enrolled in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 and ROCKET-AF. Health care cost and utility data were obtained from published sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used as thresholds for “highly cost-effective”, “cost-effective”, and “not cost-effective” treatment options, respectively, as per American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines.Results: Edoxaban was dominant relative to rivaroxaban, such that it was associated with lower total health care costs and better effectiveness in terms of QALYs in the base-case analysis. Results were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analyses that showed edoxaban as either dominant or a highly cost-effective alternative (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000) to rivaroxaban in 88.4% of 10,000 simulations.Conclusion: Results of this study showed that the once-daily edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) regimen is a cost-saving or highly cost-effective treatment relative to rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) for stroke prevention in NVAF patients with CHADS2 ≥2.Keywords: edoxaban, rivaroxaban, cost-effectiveness, nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, oral anticoagulation, stroke, NOAC, SPAF, economic model, economic analysis
first_indexed 2024-12-11T22:44:44Z
format Article
id doaj.art-8fbc383ead0f4907a4d9dc7953ea81e0
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1178-6981
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-11T22:44:44Z
publishDate 2016-05-01
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format Article
series ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
spelling doaj.art-8fbc383ead0f4907a4d9dc7953ea81e02022-12-22T00:47:39ZengDove Medical PressClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research1178-69812016-05-012016Issue 121522627048Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the USMiller JDYe XLenhart GMFarr AMTran OVKwong WJMagnuson EAWeintraub WSJeffrey D Miller,1 Xin Ye,2 Gregory M Lenhart,1 Amanda M Farr,1 Oth V Tran,1 W Jackie Kwong,2 Elizabeth A Magnuson,3 William S Weintraub41Truven Health Analytics Inc, Cambridge, MA, 2Daiichi Sankyo Inc, Parsippany, NJ, 3St Luke Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO, 4Center for Heart and Vascular Health, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, DE, USABackground: Understanding the value of new anticoagulation therapies compared with existing therapies is of paramount importance in today’s cost-conscious and efficiency-driven health care environment. Edoxaban and rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with CHADS2 scores ≥2 have been evaluated in pivotal trials versus warfarin. The relative value of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban would be of interest to health care stakeholders and patients who prefer a once-daily treatment option for long-term stroke prevention in NVAF.Objective: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of two once-daily regimens of novel oral anticoagulation therapy – edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) versus rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) – for stroke prevention in NVAF patients from a US health-plan perspective.Materials and methods: A Markov model simulated lifetime risk and treatment of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death in NVAF patients treated with edoxaban or rivaroxaban. Efficacy and safety data were derived from a network meta-analysis that utilized data from patients enrolled in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 and ROCKET-AF. Health care cost and utility data were obtained from published sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used as thresholds for “highly cost-effective”, “cost-effective”, and “not cost-effective” treatment options, respectively, as per American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines.Results: Edoxaban was dominant relative to rivaroxaban, such that it was associated with lower total health care costs and better effectiveness in terms of QALYs in the base-case analysis. Results were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analyses that showed edoxaban as either dominant or a highly cost-effective alternative (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000) to rivaroxaban in 88.4% of 10,000 simulations.Conclusion: Results of this study showed that the once-daily edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) regimen is a cost-saving or highly cost-effective treatment relative to rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) for stroke prevention in NVAF patients with CHADS2 ≥2.Keywords: edoxaban, rivaroxaban, cost-effectiveness, nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, oral anticoagulation, stroke, NOAC, SPAF, economic model, economic analysishttps://www.dovepress.com/cost-effectiveness-of-edoxaban-versus-rivaroxaban-for-stroke-preventio-peer-reviewed-article-CEORedoxabanrivaroxabancost-effectivenessnon-valvular atrial fibrillationoral anticoagulationstroke
spellingShingle Miller JD
Ye X
Lenhart GM
Farr AM
Tran OV
Kwong WJ
Magnuson EA
Weintraub WS
Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
edoxaban
rivaroxaban
cost-effectiveness
non-valvular atrial fibrillation
oral anticoagulation
stroke
title Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US
title_full Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US
title_short Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US
title_sort cost effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation nvaf in the us
topic edoxaban
rivaroxaban
cost-effectiveness
non-valvular atrial fibrillation
oral anticoagulation
stroke
url https://www.dovepress.com/cost-effectiveness-of-edoxaban-versus-rivaroxaban-for-stroke-preventio-peer-reviewed-article-CEOR
work_keys_str_mv AT millerjd costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus
AT yex costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus
AT lenhartgm costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus
AT farram costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus
AT tranov costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus
AT kwongwj costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus
AT magnusonea costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus
AT weintraubws costeffectivenessofedoxabanversusrivaroxabanforstrokepreventioninpatientswithnonvalvularatrialfibrillationnvafintheus