4.3 Article

Cost-Utility Analysis of Oral Anticoagulants for Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients at the Police General Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand

Journal

CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS
Volume 36, Issue 10, Pages 1389-1394

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.08.016

Keywords

Asian; atrial fibrillation; cost utility; new oral anticoagulant; stroke

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The genetic polymorphism was one of the major considerations for adjusting doses of warfarin in Thai individuals. As a result, new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were introduced to achieve therapeutic goals in stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (SPAF) patients. However, a cost-utility analysis in a population-specific model was lacking in Thailand. This study was performed to determine which NOACs yielded population-specific, cost-effective results for SPAF compared with warfarin from both governmental and societal perspectives in Thailand. Methods: A simplified Markov health state model was constructed to calculate the lifetime cost, life-years saved, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Asia-specific clinical event parameters were defined from systematic searches of Pub Med. Cost and utility input was obtained from hospital based data collection. Findings: Although NOACs produced more life-years saved and QALYs gained resulting from the base-case versus warfarin, the lifetime costs of new alternatives increased to > 1.4 times the comparative cost of warfarin. This caused an incremental cost-effective ratio that exceeded Thailand's cost-effectiveness threshold. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis denoted the robustness of our model and revealed that dose-adjusted warfarin was the most cost-effective option in >99% of iterations. NOACs produced cost-effective results when the medication unit cost was decreased by at least 85%. (C) 2014 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available