Is dabigatran considered a cost-effective alternative to warfarin treatment: a review of current economic evaluations worldwide

Louise Justesen Hesselbjerg, Heidi Sjoelund Pedersen, Mikael Bergholdt Asmussen, Karin Dam Petersen

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

    4 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Abstract Objective: Dabigatran was the first of a new generation of anticoagulation drugs for the indication of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) to be approved. Evidence show that dabigatran 150 mg twice daily significantly reduces the risk of stroke and systemic embolism (RR = 0.65; p  73%. Three evaluations concluded that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to warfarin in patient sub-groups; TTR ≤ 64%, congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (CHADS2 score) ≥3, or a CHADS2 score = 2 unless international normalized ratio (INR) control was excellent, and with high risk of stroke or in a low-quality warfarin treatment. Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was in general dominated by dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. Limitations: The evaluations were not fully homogeneous, as some did not include loss of productivity, costs of dyspepsia, and annual costs of dabigatran patient management. Conclusions: In the majority of the economic evaluations, dabigatran is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin treatment. In some evaluations dabigatran is only cost-effective in sub-groups, such as patients with a low TTR-value in warfarin treatment and a CHADS2 score ≥2.
    Original languageEnglish
    JournalJournal of Medical Economics
    Volume16
    Issue number7
    Pages (from-to)845-858
    ISSN1369-6998
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2013

    Cite this