Cost-effectiveness of atrial fibrillation screening in Canadian community practice.

Background: Contemporary guidelines recommend opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation (AF). Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of single time point opportunistic AF screening for patients 65 years and older by using the single-lead electrocardiogram. Methods: An established Markov cohort model was adapted by updating the background mortality estimates, epidemiology, screening efficacy, treatment patterns, resource use, and cost inputs to reflect a Canadian health care setting. Inputs were derived from a contemporary prospective screening study performed in Canadian primary care settings (screening efficacy and epidemiology) and the published literature (unit costs, epidemiology, mortality, utility, and treatment efficacy). The impact of screening and oral anticoagulant treatment on the cost and clinical outcomes was analyzed. A Canadian payer perspective over lifetime was used for analysis, with costs expressed in 2019 Canadian dollars. Results: Among the estimated screening-eligible population of 2,929,301 patients, the screening cohort identified an additional 127,670 AF cases compared with the usual care cohort. The model estimated avoidance of 12,236 strokes and incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 59,577 (0.02 per patient) over lifetime in the screening cohort. Cost savings were substantial because of improved health outcomes, reflecting screening being the dominant strategy (affordable and effective). Model results were robust across sensitivity and scenario analyses. Conclusion: Single time point opportunistic screening of AF using a single-lead electrocardiogram device in Canadian patients 65 years and older without known AF may provide improved health outcomes with cost savings from the perspective of a single payer health care environment.

Social Cost of Blindness Due to AMD and Diabetic Retinopathy in the United States in 2020.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To estimate the social cost of blindness due to wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in the United States in 2020. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Excess costs that occur because of blindness were estimated as the difference in costs in blind versus non-blind individuals. Per-patient costs were aggregated using the number of cases of blindness due to wAMD, DME, and PDR projected in 2020. RESULTS: Associated annual excess direct costs, indirect costs, and quality-adjusted life year loss per blind individual were $4,944, $54,614, and 0.214, respectively. Combining estimates with 246,423 projected cases of blindness due to wAMD, DME, and PDR translated to total societal costs of $20 billion in 2020, estimated to triple by 2050. CONCLUSION: Excess social costs associated with blindness in individuals with wAMD, DME, and PDR are substantial, with more than half of the burden attributed to indirect costs. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2020;51:S6-S14.].

Cost-Effectiveness of Extended and One-Time Screening Versus No Screening for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in the USA.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the clinical and cost benefits of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) with electrocardiogram (ECG) in asymptomatic adults. METHODS: We adapted a previously published Markov model to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of one-time screening for non-valvular AF (NVAF) with a single 12-lead ECG and a 14-day extended screening with a hand-held ECG device (Zenicor single-lead ECG, Z14) compared with no screening. Clinical events considered included ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeds, myocardial infarction, and death. Epidemiology and effectiveness data for extended screening were from the STROKESTOP study. Risks of clinical events in NVAF patients were derived from ARISTOTLE. Analyses were conducted from the perspective of a third-party payer, considering a population with undiagnosed NVAF, aged 75 years in the USA. Costs and utilities were discounted at a 3% annual rate. Parameter uncertainty was formally considered via deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA). Structural uncertainty was assessed via scenario analyses. RESULTS: In a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients followed over their lifetimes, the number of additional AF diagnoses was 54 with 12-lead ECG and 255 with Z14 compared with no screening. Both screening strategies led to better health outcomes (ischemic strokes avoided: ECG 12-lead, 9.8 and Z14, 42.2; quality-adjusted life-years gained: ECG 12-lead, 31 and Z14, 131). Extended screening and one-time screening were cost effective compared with no screening at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained ($58,728/QALY with ECG 12-lead and $47,949/QALY with Z14 in 2016 US dollars). ICERs remained below $100,000 per QALY in all DSA, most PSA runs, and in all scenario analyses except for a scenario assuming low anticoagulation persistence. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that, screening the general population at age 75 years for NVAF is cost effective at a WTP threshold of $100,000. Both extended screening and one-time screening for NVAF are expected to provide health benefits at an acceptable cost.

Value assessment of immuno-oncology in the treatment of rare tumors in the era of accelerated conditional approvals.

Aim: To conduct a value assessment of an immuno-oncology (IO) therapy for a rare cancer and evaluate whether existing frameworks consider challenges associated with valuing IOs for rare cancers. Materials & methods: Value frameworks developed by American Society of Clinical Oncologists, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and National Comprehensive Cancer Network were used to estimate the value of an IO therapy in a rare cancer based on single-arm trial data and retrospective studies. Results: Paucity of direct evidence comparing rare cancer treatments and lack of acceptance of indirect comparisons hinder appropriate value assessment. Measurement of value based on short-term outcomes may not capture the value of IOs, where survival is often characterized by a plateau. Conclusion: Further work is required to factor in nuances associated with rare cancers and guide end users of the frameworks. To capture true value, multiple or more holistic value assessments are required.

Systematic review of societal costs associated with stroke, bleeding and monitoring in atrial fibrillation.

Aim: Economic consequences associated with the rise in nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant use on a societal level remain unclear. Materials & methods: Evidence from the past decade on the societal economic burden associated with stroke, bleeding and international normalized ratio monitoring in atrial fibrillation was collected and summarized through a systematic literature review. Results: There were 14 studies identified that reported indirect costs, which were highest among patients with hemorrhagic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage. The contribution of indirect costs to the total was marginal during acute treatment but substantially increased (30-50%) 2 years after stroke and bleeding events. Conclusion: Limited data were available on societal costs in atrial fibrillation and further research is warranted.

Survival Analysis in Patients with Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma Treated with Avelumab.

INTRODUCTION: Complex underlying risk functions associated with immuno-oncology treatments have led to exploration of different methods (parametric survival, spline, landmark, and cure-fraction models) to estimate long-term survival outcomes. The objective of this study was to examine differences in estimated short- and long-term survival in previously treated metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) patients receiving avelumab, when using alternative extrapolation approaches. METHODS: Efficacy data from the phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (part A) with at least 12 months of follow-up were analyzed. Standard parametric survival analyses and analyses of overall survival (OS) as a function of surrogate outcomes comprised of response (landmark analyses) and progression-free survival plus post-progression survival (PFS + PPS) were used to project OS. Overall survival throughout lifetime was projected and compared with the observed OS data with at least 24 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Estimated OS from all three approaches provided a good fit to the observed OS curve from at least 12 months of follow-up. However, performance compared with OS data from at least 24 months showed that the landmark approach followed by PFS + PPS provided a better fit to the data as compared to standard parametric analysis. Mean life expectancy estimated with avelumab was 2.48 years with best-fitting parametric function (a log-normal distribution), 3.15 years with the landmark approach, and 3.54 years with PFS + PPS. CONCLUSION: Although standard parametric survival analysis may provide a good fit to short-term survival, it appears to underestimate the long-term survival benefits associated with avelumab in mMCC. Extrapolations based on surrogate outcomes of response or progression predict OS outcomes from longer follow-up better and appear to provide more clinically plausible projections. FUNDING: EMD Serono Inc, Rockland, MA, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Intravitreal Aflibercept Versus Ranibizumab for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of vision loss in the United States. The most severe vision loss occurs in patients with neovascular AMD, known as wet AMD (wAMD). The most commonly used antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies approved by the FDA to treat patients with wAMD are ranibizumab, 0.5 mg administered by intravitreal injection once a month (approximately every 28 days), and intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI), 2 mg every 4 weeks (monthly) for the first 12 weeks (3 months), followed by IAI 2 mg once every 8 weeks (2 months). Given the similar efficacy and safety profiles between IAI and ranibizumab, their associated costs and comparative cost-effectiveness are key factors in determining which one represents a more rational investment of scarce health care resources to help address the increasing cost of prescription drugs in the United States, a source of concern for patients, prescribers, payers, and policymakers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept injection 2 mg every 8 weeks after 3 initial monthly doses (IAI 2q8) versus ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly (Rq4) and pro re nata (PRN) in the treatment of patients with wAMD from a U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs of treating patients with wAMD with IAI 2q8, Rq4, and ranibizumab PRN. The model considered changes in best-corrected visual acuity in the affected and fellow eyes over time, and the effect of blindness on mortality. Efficacy for IAI 2q8 and Rq4 was from VIEW 1 and VIEW 2 studies and from the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials for ranibizumab PRN. Utilities and costs (in 2016 U.S. dollars) were from published literature. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, IAI 2q8 provided equal health benefits with Rq4 (5.44 QALYs) at a lower total cost ($33,745 vs. $48,031) as a result of fewer injections. IAI 2q8 yielded slightly greater QALYs versus ranibizumab PRN (5.44 vs. 5.40) at a slightly higher cost ($33,745 vs. $33,652), with an incremental cost per QALY gained of $2,583. Results were sensitive to variations in drug acquisition costs and number of injections of both drugs and the baseline age of the cohort. CONCLUSIONS: IAI 2q8 can be cost saving and cost-effective compared with Rq4 and ranibizumab PRN for the treatment of wAMD in the United States. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of aflibercept. Hernandez, Lanitis, Cele, and Toro-Diaz are employed by Evidera, which received funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals to conduct this study. Gibson and Kuznik are employed by and own stock in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Intravitreal Aflibercept Versus Ranibizumab for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of vision loss in the United States. The most severe vision loss occurs in patients with neovascular AMD, known as wet AMD (wAMD). The most commonly used antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies approved by the FDA to treat patients with wAMD are ranibizumab, 0.5 mg administered by intravitreal injection once a month (approximately every 28 days), and intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI), 2 mg every 4 weeks (monthly) for the first 12 weeks (3 months), followed by IAI 2 mg once every 8 weeks (2 months). Given the similar efficacy and safety profiles between IAI and ranibizumab, their associated costs and comparative cost-effectiveness are key factors in determining which one represents a more rational investment of scarce health care resources to help address the increasing cost of prescription drugs in the United States, a source of concern for patients, prescribers, payers, and policymakers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept injection 2 mg every 8 weeks after 3 initial monthly doses (IAI 2q8) versus ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly (Rq4) and pro re nata (PRN) in the treatment of patients with wAMD from a U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs of treating patients with wAMD with IAI 2q8, Rq4, and ranibizumab PRN. The model considered changes in best-corrected visual acuity in the affected and fellow eyes over time, and the effect of blindness on mortality. Efficacy for IAI 2q8 and Rq4 was from VIEW 1 and VIEW 2 studies and from the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials for ranibizumab PRN. Utilities and costs (in 2016 U.S. dollars) were from published literature. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, IAI 2q8 provided equal health benefits with Rq4 (5.44 QALYs) at a lower total cost ($33,745 vs. $48,031) as a result of fewer injections. IAI 2q8 yielded slightly greater QALYs versus ranibizumab PRN (5.44 vs. 5.40) at a slightly higher cost ($33,745 vs. $33,652), with an incremental cost per QALY gained of $2,583. Results were sensitive to variations in drug acquisition costs and number of injections of both drugs and the baseline age of the cohort. CONCLUSIONS: IAI 2q8 can be cost saving and cost-effective compared with Rq4 and ranibizumab PRN for the treatment of wAMD in the United States. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of aflibercept. Hernandez, Lanitis, Cele, and Toro-Diaz are employed by Evidera, which received funding from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals to conduct this study. Gibson and Kuznik are employed by and own stock in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Study concept and design were contributed by Hernandez, Lanitis, Kuznik, and Toro-Diaz. Cele, Toro-Diaz, and Lanitis took the lead in data collection, with assistance from the other authors. Data interpretation was performed by Cele, Toro-Diaz, Hernandez, Lanitis, and Kuznik. The manuscript was written by Hernandez, Lanitis, Gibson, Kuznik, and Cele and revised by Hernandez, Gibson, Kuznik, and Lanitis.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus low molecular weight heparin/vitamin k antagonist for the treatment of venous thromboembolism and the prevention of recurrences.

BACKGROUND: Prior analyses beyond clinical trials are yet to evaluate the projected lifetime benefit of apixaban treatment compared to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)/vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and prevention of recurrences. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of initial plus extended treatment with apixaban versus LMWH/VKA for either initial treatment only or initial plus extended treatment. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to evaluate the lifetime clinical and economic impact of treatment of VTE and prevention of recurrences with apixaban (starting at 10 mg BID for 1 week, then 5 mg BID for 6 months, then 2.5 mg BID for an additional 12 months) versus LMWH/VKA for 6 months and either no further treatment or extended treatment with VKA for an additional 12 months. Clinical event rates to inform the model were taken from the AMPLIFY and AMPLIFY-EXT trials and a network meta-analysis. Background mortality rates, costs, and utilities were obtained from published sources. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Service. The evaluated outcomes included the number of events avoided in a 1000-patient cohort, total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: Initial plus extended treatment with apixaban was superior to both treatment durations of LMWH/VKA in reducing the number of bleeding events, and was superior to initial LMWH/VKA for 6 months followed by no therapy, in reducing VTE recurrences. Apixaban treatment was cost-effective compared to 6-month treatment with LMWH/VKA at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6692 per QALY. When initial LMWH/VKA was followed by further VKA therapy for an additional 12 months (i.e., total treatment duration of 18 months), apixaban was cost-effective at an ICER of £8528 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis suggested these findings were robust over a wide range of inputs and scenarios for the model. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, initial plus extended treatment with apixaban for treatment of VTE and prevention of recurrences appears to be economical and a clinically effective alternative to LMWH/VKA, whether used for initial or initial plus extended treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of Apixaban Versus Other Oral Anticoagulants for the Initial Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism and Prevention of Recurrence.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus rivaroxaban, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)/dabigatran, and LMWH/vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for the initial treatment and prevention of recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic effect of 6 months of treatment with apixaban versus other anticoagulants over a lifetime horizon. Network meta-analyses were conducted using the results of the Apixaban after the Initial Management of Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis with First-Line Therapy (AMPLIFY), EINSTEIN-pooled, and RE-COVER I and II trials for the following end points: recurrent VTE, major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and treatment discontinuations. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Service. The outcomes evaluated were the number of events avoided in a 1000-patient cohort, total costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost per QALY gained over a patient's lifetime. FINDINGS: Treatment for 6 months with apixaban was projected to result in fewer recurrent VTE and bleeding events in comparison to rivaroxaban, LMWH/dabigatran, and LMWH/VKA. Apixaban was cost-effective compared with LMWH/VKA at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2520 per QALY gained and was a dominant (ie, lower costs and higher QALYs) alternative to either rivaroxaban or LMWH/dabigatran. Sensitivity analysis indicated that results were robust over a wide range of inputs. IMPLICATIONS: The assessment of the effects and costs of apixaban in this study predicted that apixaban is a dominant alternative to rivaroxaban and LMWH/dabigatran and a cost-effective alternative to LMWH/VKA for 6 months of treatment of VTE and the prevention of recurrence.

The Cost-effectiveness of Pixantrone for Third/Fourth-line Treatment of Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (aNHL) is associated with poor long-term survival after relapse, and treatment is limited by a lack of consensus regarding standard of care. Pixantrone was studied in a randomized trial in patients with relapsed or refractory aNHL who had failed ≥ 2 lines of therapy, demonstrating a significant improvement in complete or unconfirmed complete response and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with investigators' choice of single-agent therapy. The objective of this study was to assess the health economic implications of pixantrone versus current clinical practice (CCP) in the United Kingdom for patients with multiply relapsed or refractory aNHL receiving their third or fourth line of treatment. METHODS: A semi-Markov partition model based on overall survival and PFS was developed to evaluate the lifetime clinical and economic impact of treatment of multiply relapsed or refractory aNHL with pixantrone versus CCP. The empirical overall survival and PFS data from the PIX301 trial were extrapolated to a lifetime horizon. Resource use was elicited from clinical experts, and unit costs and utilities were obtained from published sources. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the United Kingdom's National Health Service and personal social services. Outcomes evaluated were total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around the results. FINDINGS: Pixantrone was estimated to increase life expectancy by a mean of 10.8 months per patient compared with CCP and a mean gain of 0.56 discounted QALYs. The increased health gains were associated with an increase in discounted costs of approximately £18,494 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pixantrone versus CCP was £33,272 per QALY gained. Sensitivity and scenario analyses suggest that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was sensitive to uncertainty in the PFS and overall survival estimates and the utility values associated with each health state. IMPLICATIONS: Pixantrone may be considered both clinically effective and cost-effective for patients with multiply relapsed or refractory aNHL who currently have a high level of unmet need.

Cost-effectiveness of Apixaban Compared With Edoxaban for Stroke Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of apixaban 5 mg BID versus high- and low-dose edoxaban (60 mg and 30 mg once daily) as intended starting dose strategies for stroke prevention in patients from a UK National Health Service perspective. METHODS: A previously developed and validated Markov model was adapted to evaluate the lifetime clinical and economic impact of apixaban 5 mg BID versus edoxaban (high and low dose) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. A pairwise indirect treatment comparison was conducted for clinical end points, and price parity was assumed between apixaban and edoxaban. Costs in 2012 British pounds, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, discounted at 3.5% per annum, were estimated. FINDINGS: Apixaban was predicted to increase life expectancy and QALYs versus low- and high-dose edoxaban. These gains were achieved at cost-savings versus low-dose edoxaban, thus being dominant and nominal increases in costs versus high-dose edoxaban. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of apixaban versus high-dose edoxaban was £6763 per QALY gained. IMPLICATIONS: Apixaban was deemed to be dominant (less costly and more effective) versus low-dose edoxaban and a cost-effective alternative to high-dose edoxaban.

Clinical and Economic Implications of Apixaban Versus Aspirin in the Low-Risk Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although recommended by guidelines, the benefits of treating patients with atrial fibrillation with a low-stroke risk score, with aspirin or anticoagulants, have not been clearly established. With advent of safer non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant, we assessed the clinical and economic implications of 5 mg BID of apixaban versus aspirin among patients with a relative low risk of stroke as assessed using the CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age>75, diabetes mellitus, stroke/transient ischemic attack) and CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes mellitus, stroke/transient ischemic attack, vascular disease) stroke risk classification. METHODS: A previously developed and validated Markov model was adapted. A secondary analysis of the Apixaban Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid to Prevent Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Who Have Failed or Are Unsuitable for Vitamin K Antagonist Treatment (AVERROES) study was conducted to estimate event rates in different low-risk cohorts by treatment. Three cohorts (n=1000) with a CHADS2 score of 1, CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1, and CHA2DS2-VASc of score 2 to 4 were simulated to assess the number of clinical events avoided in terms of strokes and major bleeds, as well as life years gained, quality-adjusted life years gained, costs, and incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year gained. RESULTS: Apixaban was associated with fewer strokes and systemic embolism versus aspirin across all subgroups; however, it caused more major bleeding events. The reduction in systemic embolism offset the increase in major bleeding events leading to increased life expectancy and quality-adjusted life year gains, achieved at an increased cost that was lower than the UK threshold of $44,400 (ie, £30,000) per quality-adjusted life year gained across the 3 cohorts examined. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulant treatment with apixaban versus aspirin in low-risk patients, as identified using CHADS2 or CHA2DS2-VASc, is projected to increase life expectancy and provide clinical benefits that are cost effective.

Stroke and systemic embolism prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in Belgium: comparative cost effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants and warfarin.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Management of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) focuses on the use of anticoagulation to mitigate the risk of stroke. Until recently, vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment was considered the standard of care, with the emergence of non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) shifting treatment practice. The objective of this study was therefore to assess the use of warfarin and the NOACs for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF from the perspective of a Belgian healthcare payer using a cost-effectiveness analysis and the efficiency frontier approach. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted to the Belgian healthcare setting. Clinical events modelled include ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, intracranial haemorrhage, other major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospitalisation and treatment discontinuations. Efficacy and bleeding data for warfarin and apixaban 5 mg twice daily were obtained from the ARISTOTLE trial, whilst those for other NOACs (rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily, dabigatran 110 mg twice daily, dabigatran 150 mg twice daily) were from published indirect comparisons. Acute medical costs were obtained from reimbursement payments made to Belgian hospitals, whilst long-term medical costs and utility data were derived from the literature. The efficiency frontier was calculated using total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as outcomes. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Warfarin and apixaban were the two optimal treatment choices, as the other three treatment alternatives including dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg switching to dabigatran 110 mg at the age of 80 years and rivaroxaban were extendedly or strictly dominated on the efficiency frontier. Apixaban was a cost-effective alternative vs warfarin at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 7,212/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Amongst NOACs, apixaban may be the most economically efficient alternative to warfarin in NVAF patients who are suitable for VKA treatment and eligible for stroke prevention in Belgium.

Cost effectiveness of apixaban versus aspirin for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Belgium.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Evidence indicates that vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and oral anticoagulant therapy are under-utilised for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF), and patients who decline or cannot tolerate such treatment are often prescribed aspirin instead. Apixaban has been shown in the AVERROES trial to be superior to aspirin in preventing stroke and systemic embolism without significantly increasing the risk of major bleeding among patients with AF who are unsuitable for VKA therapy. This study estimates the economic implications and potential cost effectiveness of apixaban compared with aspirin in such individuals from the perspective of healthcare payers in Belgium. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of apixaban compared with aspirin in patients unsuitable for VKA therapy. The clinical events modelled include ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, intracranial haemorrhage, other major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospitalisation and treatment discontinuations obtained from AVERROES. Outcomes included life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a lifetime. RESULTS: Apixaban was projected to increase life expectancy and QALYs compared with aspirin, with an associated increase in drug acquisition costs. The estimated ICER was 7,334 per QALY gained with apixaban compared with aspirin. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban is a cost-effective alternative to aspirin for patients with AF in Belgium who decline or cannot tolerate VKA treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus warfarin and aspirin in Sweden for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF), one of the major risk factors for stroke, imposing a substantial burden to the Swedish health care system. Apixaban has demonstrated superiority to warfarin and aspirin in stroke prevention amongst patients with AF in two large randomised clinical trials. The aim of this study was to assess the economic implications of apixaban against warfarin and aspirin in these patients from a Swedish societal perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov cohort model was constructed to characterise the consequences of anticoagulant treatment with regards to thromboembolic and bleeding events, as well as the associated health care costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for patients with AF treated with apixaban, warfarin or aspirin. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY gained of apixaban relative to warfarin (among patients suitable for warfarin treatment) and aspirin (among patients unsuitable for warfarin treatment) were calculated. Costs (in 2011 SEKs) and QALYs were discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: The model estimated the ICER of apixaban versus warfarin amongst patients who are suitable for warfarin therapy to be SEK 33,458/QALY gained and that of apixaban versus aspirin amongst those unsuitable for warfarin therapy to be SEK 41,453/QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicate that apixaban is an optimal treatment option compared with warfarin and aspirin, when the willingness-to-pay is above SEK 35,000 and SEK 45,000 per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban was found to be a cost-effective alternative to warfarin and aspirin for stroke prevention in patients with AF in Sweden.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban vs. current standard of care for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), has been the standard of care for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Aspirin is recommended for low-risk patients and those unsuitable for warfarin. Apixaban is an oral anticoagulant that has demonstrated better efficacy than warfarin and aspirin in the ARISTOTLE and AVERROES studies, respectively, and causes less bleeding than warfarin. We evaluated the potential cost-effectiveness of apixaban against warfarin and aspirin from the perspective of the UK payer perspective. RESULTS AND METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic impact of apixaban compared with warfarin and aspirin in VKA suitable and VKA unsuitable patients, respectively. Clinical events considered in the model include ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, other major bleed, clinically relevant non-major bleed, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospitalization and treatment discontinuations; data from the ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials and published mortality rates and event-related utility rates were used in the model. Apixaban was projected to increase life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with warfarin and aspirin. These gains were expected to be achieved at a drug acquisition-related cost increase over lifetime. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £11 909 and £7196 per QALY gained with apixaban compared with warfarin and aspirin, respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust to a wide range of inputs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on randomized trial data, apixaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin and aspirin, in VKA suitable and VKA unsuitable patients with AF, respectively.

Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: a review of the literature.

The objective of this study is to support those undertaking a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) by reviewing the approaches adopted in healthcare MCDAs to date, how these varied with the objective of the study, and the lessons learned from this experience. Searches of EMBASE and MEDLINE identified 40 studies that provided 41 examples of MCDA in healthcare. Data were extracted on the objective of the study, methods employed, and decision makers' and study authors' reflections on the advantages and disadvantages of the methods. The recent interest in MCDA in healthcare is mirrored in an increase in the application of MCDA to evaluate healthcare interventions. Of the studies identified, the first was published in 1990, but more than half were published since 2011. They were undertaken in 18 different countries, and were designed to support investment (coverage and reimbursement), authorization, prescription, and research funding allocation decisions. Many intervention types were assessed: pharmaceuticals, public health interventions, screening, surgical interventions, and devices. Most used the value measurement approach and scored performance using predefined scales. Beyond these similarities, a diversity of different approaches were adopted, with only limited correspondence between the approach and the type of decision or product. Decision makers consulted as part of these studies, as well as the authors of the studies are positive about the potential of MCDA to improve decision making. Further work is required, however, to develop guidance for those undertaking MCDA.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus other new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Apixaban (5 mg BID), dabigatran (available as 150 mg and 110 mg BID in Europe), and rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily) are 3 novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) currently approved for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of apixaban against other NOACs from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Services. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic impact of apixaban versus other NOACs over a lifetime. Pair-wise indirect treatment comparisons were conducted against other NOACs by using ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation), RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy), and ROCKET-AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial results for the following end points: ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds, myocardial infarction, and treatment discontinuations. Outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life years gained, direct health care costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Apixaban was projected to increase life expectancy versus other NOACs, including dabigatran (both doses) and rivaroxaban. A small increase in therapeutic management costs was observed with apixaban due to projected gains in life expectancy and lower discontinuation rates anticipated on apixaban versus other NOACs through lifetime. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £9611, £4497, and £5305 per quality-adjusted life-year gained with apixaban compared with dabigatran 150 mg BID, dabigatran 110 mg BID, and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily, respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust over a wide range of inputs. CONCLUSIONS: Although our analysis was limited by the absence of head-to-head trials, based on the indirect comparison data available, our model projects that apixaban may be a cost-effective alternative to dabigatran 150 mg BID, dabigatran 110 mg BID, and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily for stroke prevention in AF patients from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Services.