Comparative pharmacoeconomic analysis of the use of apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran for prevention of stroke and embolism in the vessels of the systemic circulation in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Abstract

Aim . To compare the effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) for preventing stroke and systemic thromboembolism (embolism in the vessels of the systemic circulation, systemic embolism) in terms of pharmacoeconomic indicators. Materials and Methods . The economic assessment was carried out from the standpoint of the healthcare system of the Russian Federation. We used published data on the clinical efficacy and safety of DOACs, which were obtained earlier in clinical trials. The efficacy of therapy was assessed by the incidence of ischemic stroke (IS) of systemic embolism (SE), while the safety was assessed by the incidence of major bleeding (MB) and clinically signifi cant minor bleeding (CSNMB). The total cost of patient management for each alternative treatment option included both the cost of drug therapy and the cost of managing adverse events over a study horizon of 12 months. The conclusion about the most preferred alternative was made on the basis of the ratio of effectiveness and cost of treating the patient. Results . The use of apixaban to prevent IS or SE in patients with AF was accompanied by a decrease in the incidence of their development (HR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.73–0.89; HR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.60–0.85 — compared with rivaroxaban and dabigatran, respectively), as well as a decrease in the frequency of MB compared with other DOACs (HR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.53–0.59; HR 0.78, 95 % CI 0.70–0.87 — compared with rivaroxaban and dabigatran, respectively). Since apixaban was more effective and safer than rivaroxaban and dabigatran, a cost-effectiveness approach was applied in this study. The least expensive treatment regimen included apixaban, the direct cost was 33,263 roubles per patient. The advantage was achieved both due to the lower of therapy with apixaban (29.6–34.0 % lower than other DOACs) and the minimum cost of managing the adverse events: for MB and CSNMB, it was reduced by 20.7 % compared to dabigatran and by 44.7 % compared to rivaroxaban; for stroke/SE, it was reduced by 25.9 % and 20.6 %, respectively. Conclusion . In patients with AF, apixaban was more cost-effective compared with rivaroxaban or dabigatran for preventing IS and SE, as it led to higher clinical efficacy and safety while requiring less healthcare system costs.