Cost-effectiveness of Dabigatran Compared With Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Stroke and Systemic Embolism in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation in China

Clin Ther. 2020 Jan;42(1):144-156.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.11.011. Epub 2020 Jan 10.

Abstract

Purpose: In China, dabigatran and rivaroxaban are the only approved non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). The goal of this article was to assess the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in Chinese patients with AF from the perspective of the Chinese health care system.

Methods: A Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban. Clinical events were modeled for a lifetime horizon, based on clinical efficacy data from indirect treatment comparisons. The weighted average of the most recent prices of these 2 drugs was used as the drug acquisition cost. Other costs, including follow-up costs and event costs, were collected by using a survey from a panel of local experts. Utility inputs (health state utilities, clinical event disutilities, and event history utility) were obtained from published literature. Sensitivity analyses that included scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to examine the robustness of the economic model.

Findings: Over a lifetime, patients treated with dabigatran experienced fewer ischemic strokes (2.14 dabigatran vs 2.61 rivaroxaban) and fewer intracranial hemorrhage (0.48 vs 0.94) per 100 patient-years. In the base case analysis, dabigatran had an incremental cost of ¥28,128 but with higher life years (10.38 vs 10.14) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (7.95 vs 7.70). The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥112,910 per QALY gained and net monetary benefit of ¥12,214 versus rivaroxaban showed that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to rivaroxaban. Extensive sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust over a wide range of inputs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that dabigatran was cost-effective in 84.2% of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations compared with rivaroxaban.

Implications: Dabigatran reduced the occurrence of clinical events and increased QALYs compared with rivaroxaban. The use of dabigatran for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism is a cost-effective option compared with rivaroxaban among patients with AF in China.

Keywords: Atrial fibrillation; Cost-effectiveness; Dabigatran; Rivaroxaban; Stroke.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Anticoagulants / economics*
  • Anticoagulants / therapeutic use
  • Atrial Fibrillation / drug therapy
  • Atrial Fibrillation / economics*
  • China
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Dabigatran / economics*
  • Dabigatran / therapeutic use
  • Embolism / prevention & control*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Markov Chains
  • Models, Economic
  • Quality-Adjusted Life Years
  • Rivaroxaban / economics*
  • Rivaroxaban / therapeutic use
  • Stroke / prevention & control*
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • Anticoagulants
  • Rivaroxaban
  • Dabigatran