Comparative Costs to Medicare and Medicare Beneficiaries of Alternative AF Stroke Risk Reduction Strategies.

Background: As healthcare costs are increasingly being shifted from payers to patients, it is important to understand the economic consequences of therapeutic strategies to both payers and patients. Objective: To determine the relative costs to Medicare and Medicare beneficiaries (patients) of warfarin, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs), and left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) for stroke risk reduction in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Methods: An economic model was developed to assess costs at 5 and 10 years. For warfarin and NOACs, inputs were derived from published meta-analyses; for LAAC with the Watchman device, inputs were derived from pooled 5-year PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trial results. The model captured therapy costs vs clinical event costs, including procedural complications and follow-up clinical outcomes. Costs were based on 2023 Medicare reimbursement and copayment rates. Results: At 10 years, overall LAAC costs ($48,337) were lower than those of NOACs ($81,198) and warfarin ($52,359). Overall LAAC costs were lower than those of NOACs by year 5 and warfarin by year 9. At 5 years, patient LAAC costs were lowest at $4,764, compared to $7,146 and $6,453 for NOACs and warfarin, respectively. LAAC patient costs were lower than those of NOACs by year 3 and warfarin by year 4. Clinical events comprised 96% of overall warfarin costs vs 48% for LAAC and 40% for NOACs. Conclusion: LAAC yielded the lowest overall and patient costs. Warfarin costs were largely driven by clinical events, which may represent an unplanned financial burden for patients. These considerations should be incorporated into shared decision-making discussions about stroke prophylaxis strategies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Left Atrial Appendage Closure With the WATCHMAN Device Compared With Warfarin or Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Secondary Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Once a patient with atrial fibrillation experiences an embolic event, the risk of a recurrent event increases 2.6-fold. New treatments have emerged as viable treatment alternatives to warfarin for stroke risk reduction in secondary prevention populations. This analysis sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) compared with warfarin and the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban and rivaroxaban in the prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with a prior stroke or transient ischemic attack. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed using data from the secondary prevention subgroup analyses of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and LAAC pivotal trials. Costs were from 2016 US Medicare reimbursement rates and the literature. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a US Medicare perspective over a lifetime (20 years) horizon. The model was populated with a cohort of 10 000 patients aged 70 years with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 7 (annual stroke risk=9.60%) and HAS-BLED score of 3 (annual bleeding risk=3.74%). RESULTS: LAAC achieved cost-effectiveness relative to dabigatran at year 5 and warfarin and apixaban at year 6. At 10 years, LAAC had more quality-adjusted life years (4.986 versus 4.769, 4.869, 4.888, and 4.810) and lower costs ($42 616 versus $53 770, $58 774, $55 656, and $58 655) than warfarin, dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban, respectively, making LAAC the dominant (more effective and less costly) stroke risk reduction strategy. LAAC remained the dominant strategy over the lifetime analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront procedure costs initially make LAAC higher cost than warfarin and the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, but within 10 years, LAAC delivers more quality-adjusted life years and has lower total costs, making LAAC the most cost-effective treatment strategy for secondary prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation.

Cost effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device for atrial fibrillation patients with absolute contraindications to warfarin.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation have had few options for stroke prevention. Recently, a novel oral anticoagulant, apixaban, and percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) have emerged as safe and effective therapies for stroke risk reduction in these patients. This analysis assessed the cost effectiveness of LAAC with the Watchman device relative to apixaban and aspirin therapy in patients with non-valvular AF and contraindications to warfarin therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cost-effectiveness model was constructed using data from three studies on stroke prevention in patients with contraindications: the ASAP study evaluating the Watchman device, the ACTIVE A trial of aspirin and clopidogrel, and the AVERROES trial evaluating apixaban. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a German healthcare payer perspective over a 20-year time horizon. Left atrial appendage closure yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than aspirin and apixaban by 2 and 4 years, respectively. At 5 years, LAAC was cost effective compared with aspirin with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €16 971. Left atrial appendage closure was cost effective compared with apixaban at 7 years with an ICER of €9040. Left atrial appendage closure was cost saving and more effective than aspirin and apixaban at 8 years and remained so throughout the 20-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that LAAC with the Watchman device is a cost-effective and cost-saving solution for stroke risk reduction in patients with non-valvular AF who are at risk for stroke but have contraindications to warfarin.