Abstract
Background
Patient self-managed anticoagulant treatment with warfarin (PSM) has been proposed as an alternative to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); however, direct evidence on the cost effectiveness of PSM compared with DOACs is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of PSM versus DOACs for NVAF patients in the Danish healthcare setting using a model-based cost-utility analysis.
Methods
A cost-utility analysis was performed using a decision-analytic model including two treatment alternatives: continuous PSM and DOACs. The analysis was performed from an extended Danish healthcare sector perspective, including patient-paid costs of medication related to the anticoagulant treatment, with a lifetime horizon. Inputs for the model comprised of probabilities of events, costs in Danish estimates, when possible, and effect in utilities. The probabilities of events are primarily based on real-life data from a direct comparison of PSM and DOACs. The results are presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with an assumed cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the robustness of the results.
Results
The base-analysis showed that PSM was dominant, with a decreased cost of £8495 and an increased QALY accumulation of 0.23 per patient (ICER = −£36,935/QALY). All deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that PSM was dominant or at least cost effective. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that 95% of the iterations were cost effective.
Conclusions
The present study found that PSM is dominant (i.e., both more effective and cost saving) compared with DOACs, adding to the scarce evidence of the comparative cost effectiveness of PSM and DOACs in NVAF.
Patient self-managed anticoagulant treatment with warfarin (PSM) has been proposed as an alternative to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); however, direct evidence on the cost effectiveness of PSM compared with DOACs is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of PSM versus DOACs for NVAF patients in the Danish healthcare setting using a model-based cost-utility analysis.
Methods
A cost-utility analysis was performed using a decision-analytic model including two treatment alternatives: continuous PSM and DOACs. The analysis was performed from an extended Danish healthcare sector perspective, including patient-paid costs of medication related to the anticoagulant treatment, with a lifetime horizon. Inputs for the model comprised of probabilities of events, costs in Danish estimates, when possible, and effect in utilities. The probabilities of events are primarily based on real-life data from a direct comparison of PSM and DOACs. The results are presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with an assumed cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the robustness of the results.
Results
The base-analysis showed that PSM was dominant, with a decreased cost of £8495 and an increased QALY accumulation of 0.23 per patient (ICER = −£36,935/QALY). All deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that PSM was dominant or at least cost effective. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that 95% of the iterations were cost effective.
Conclusions
The present study found that PSM is dominant (i.e., both more effective and cost saving) compared with DOACs, adding to the scarce evidence of the comparative cost effectiveness of PSM and DOACs in NVAF.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | PharmacoEconomics - Open |
| Vol/bind | 6 |
| Udgave nummer | 4 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 483-494 |
| Antal sider | 12 |
| ISSN | 2509-4262 |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - jul. 2022 |