美国对阿哌沙班与华法林、达比加群和利伐沙班治疗非瓣膜性心房颤动的成本效益分析,重点关注生命年和健康年总数的等值。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of comparative effectiveness research Pub Date : 2024-11-28 DOI:10.57264/cer-2024-0163
Nipun Atreja, Kasper Johannesen, Rupesh Subash, Carina Bektur, Melissa Hagan, Dionne M Hines, Iulia Dunnett, Ewa Stawowczyk
{"title":"美国对阿哌沙班与华法林、达比加群和利伐沙班治疗非瓣膜性心房颤动的成本效益分析,重点关注生命年和健康年总数的等值。","authors":"Nipun Atreja, Kasper Johannesen, Rupesh Subash, Carina Bektur, Melissa Hagan, Dionne M Hines, Iulia Dunnett, Ewa Stawowczyk","doi":"10.57264/cer-2024-0163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Warfarin and direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely prescribed to patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) to reduce risk of stroke and systemic embolism (SE). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, for patients with NVAF from a US healthcare payer (Medicare) perspective. <b>Methods:</b> A cohort-level Markov model was developed based on a previously published model, for the US setting, factoring in anticipated price decreases due to market entry of generic drugs. Two retrospective cohort studies in US Medicare patients provided inputs to quantify clinical events in the base case setting and in a scenario analysis. For this study, equal value of life-years (evLYs) and health years in total (HYT) were used. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per evLY gained (evLYG) or HYT gained (HYTG). <b>Results:</b> Apixaban treatment was associated with gains of 2.23, 1.08 and 1.72 evLYs and 2.26, 1.08 and 1.73 HYTs, compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, respectively. In the base case analysis from a Medicare perspective, apixaban was cost-effective (i.e., value for money) compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, with corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per evLYG (and HYTG) of $10,501 ($10,350), $7809 ($7769) and $758 ($768), respectively. When a societal perspective was included, and in a scenario analysis using US Medicare data from the Ray <i>et al.</i> study to quantify treatment effects, apixaban dominated rivaroxaban (i.e., less expensive and more effective) in terms of ICER per evLYG (and HYTG). <b>Conclusion:</b> Using dynamic pricing assumptions, treatment with apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban was associated with incremental evLYs and HYT and represents a cost-effective treatment option in patients with NVAF, from a US healthcare payer (Medicare) perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e240163"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"US cost-effectiveness analysis of apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, focusing on equal value of life years and health years in total.\",\"authors\":\"Nipun Atreja, Kasper Johannesen, Rupesh Subash, Carina Bektur, Melissa Hagan, Dionne M Hines, Iulia Dunnett, Ewa Stawowczyk\",\"doi\":\"10.57264/cer-2024-0163\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Warfarin and direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely prescribed to patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) to reduce risk of stroke and systemic embolism (SE). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, for patients with NVAF from a US healthcare payer (Medicare) perspective. <b>Methods:</b> A cohort-level Markov model was developed based on a previously published model, for the US setting, factoring in anticipated price decreases due to market entry of generic drugs. Two retrospective cohort studies in US Medicare patients provided inputs to quantify clinical events in the base case setting and in a scenario analysis. For this study, equal value of life-years (evLYs) and health years in total (HYT) were used. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per evLY gained (evLYG) or HYT gained (HYTG). <b>Results:</b> Apixaban treatment was associated with gains of 2.23, 1.08 and 1.72 evLYs and 2.26, 1.08 and 1.73 HYTs, compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, respectively. In the base case analysis from a Medicare perspective, apixaban was cost-effective (i.e., value for money) compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, with corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per evLYG (and HYTG) of $10,501 ($10,350), $7809 ($7769) and $758 ($768), respectively. When a societal perspective was included, and in a scenario analysis using US Medicare data from the Ray <i>et al.</i> study to quantify treatment effects, apixaban dominated rivaroxaban (i.e., less expensive and more effective) in terms of ICER per evLYG (and HYTG). <b>Conclusion:</b> Using dynamic pricing assumptions, treatment with apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban was associated with incremental evLYs and HYT and represents a cost-effective treatment option in patients with NVAF, from a US healthcare payer (Medicare) perspective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e240163\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0163\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0163","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:华法林和直接作用口服抗凝药(DOACs)被广泛用于非瓣膜性心房颤动(NVAF)患者,以降低中风和全身性栓塞(SE)的风险。本研究旨在从美国医疗保险支付方(Medicare)的角度评估阿哌沙班与华法林、达比加群和利伐沙班相比,治疗非瓣膜性心房颤动患者的成本效益。研究方法根据之前发表的模型,针对美国的情况,考虑到仿制药进入市场导致的预期价格下降,建立了队列级马尔可夫模型。两项针对美国医疗保险患者的回顾性队列研究提供了输入数据,用于量化基本病例和情景分析中的临床事件。本研究采用了等值生命年(evLYs)和总健康年(HYT)。成本效益的评估基于每获得 evLYs (evLYG) 或 HYT 获得 (HYTG) 100,000 美元的支付意愿阈值。结果与华法林、达比加群和利伐沙班相比,阿哌沙班治疗的evLYs收益分别为2.23、1.08和1.72,HYTs收益分别为2.26、1.08和1.73。在从医疗保险角度进行的基础病例分析中,与华法林、达比加群和利伐沙班相比,阿哌沙班具有成本效益(即物有所值),每 evLYG(和 HYTG)的相应增量成本效益比(ICER)分别为 10501 美元(10350 美元)、7809 美元(7769 美元)和 758 美元(768 美元)。当纳入社会视角,并使用 Ray 等人研究中的美国医疗保险数据进行情景分析以量化治疗效果时,就每 evLYG(和 HYTG)的 ICER 而言,阿哌沙班在利伐沙班中占主导地位(即成本更低且更有效)。结论:采用动态定价假设,与华法林、达比加群和利伐沙班相比,阿哌沙班的治疗与增量 evLYs 和 HYT 相关,从美国医疗保险支付方(Medicare)的角度来看,阿哌沙班是一种对 NVAF 患者具有成本效益的治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
US cost-effectiveness analysis of apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, focusing on equal value of life years and health years in total.

Aim: Warfarin and direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely prescribed to patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) to reduce risk of stroke and systemic embolism (SE). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, for patients with NVAF from a US healthcare payer (Medicare) perspective. Methods: A cohort-level Markov model was developed based on a previously published model, for the US setting, factoring in anticipated price decreases due to market entry of generic drugs. Two retrospective cohort studies in US Medicare patients provided inputs to quantify clinical events in the base case setting and in a scenario analysis. For this study, equal value of life-years (evLYs) and health years in total (HYT) were used. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per evLY gained (evLYG) or HYT gained (HYTG). Results: Apixaban treatment was associated with gains of 2.23, 1.08 and 1.72 evLYs and 2.26, 1.08 and 1.73 HYTs, compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, respectively. In the base case analysis from a Medicare perspective, apixaban was cost-effective (i.e., value for money) compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, with corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per evLYG (and HYTG) of $10,501 ($10,350), $7809 ($7769) and $758 ($768), respectively. When a societal perspective was included, and in a scenario analysis using US Medicare data from the Ray et al. study to quantify treatment effects, apixaban dominated rivaroxaban (i.e., less expensive and more effective) in terms of ICER per evLYG (and HYTG). Conclusion: Using dynamic pricing assumptions, treatment with apixaban compared with warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban was associated with incremental evLYs and HYT and represents a cost-effective treatment option in patients with NVAF, from a US healthcare payer (Medicare) perspective.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
期刊最新文献
Advancing the role of real-world evidence in comparative effectiveness research. Clinical assessment of the potential use of a novel single-dose prefilled injection device for the administration of Acthar Gel in children: a narrative review. A novel injection device to administer repository corticotropin injection for inflammatory disease treatment: findings from a market research study. Healthcare costs and resource utilization of patients with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder: a retrospective US claims analysis of commercially insured patients. Managing the challenges of paying for gene therapy: strategies for market action and policy reform in the United States.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1