Real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban vs VKA in stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the UK

8Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Morbidity and mortality associated with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) imposes a substantial economic burden on the UK healthcare system. Objectives: An existing Markov model was adapted to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban, each compared with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF from the National Health Service (NHS) and personal and social services (PSS) perspective. Methods: The model considered a cycle length of 3 months over a lifetime horizon. All inputs were drawn from real-world evidence (RWE): baseline patient characteristics, clinical event and persistence rates, treatment effect (meta-analysis of RWE studies), utility values and resource use. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was £14,437 for rivaroxaban, and £20,101 for apixaban, compared with VKA. The probabilities to be cost-effective compared with VKA were 90% and 81%, respectively for rivaroxaban and apixaban, considering a £20,000 threshold. In both comparisons, the results were most sensitive to clinical event rates. Conclusions: These results suggest that rivaroxaban and apixaban are cost-effective vs VKA, based on RWE, considering a £20,000 threshold, from the NHS and PSS perspective in the UK for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF. This economic evaluation may provide valuable information for decision-makers, in a context where RWE is more accessible and its value more acknowledged.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bowrin, K., Briere, J. B., Levy, P., Millier, A., Tardu, J., & Toumi, M. (2020). Real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban vs VKA in stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the UK. Journal of Market Access and Health Policy, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2020.1782164

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free