Cost-Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation in Hong Kong

Abstract

ObjectivesThe emergence of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has revolutionized the prevention of stroke related to nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Several DOACs are available on the market, while the cost-effectiveness comparison among DOACs and vitamin K antagonist (warfarin) in NVAF management in Hong Kong market remains scarce. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of DOACs and warfarin from a Hong Kong public institutional perspective to inform formulary listing decisions. MethodsA previously developed Markov model was adapted to simulate the lifetime disease progression of a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients. Net monetary costs, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were computed for the following competing alternatives: warfarin, apixaban (5 mg twice daily), dabigatran (110 mg or 150 mg twice daily), and rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address study uncertainties. ResultsIn base-case results, all DOACs were associated with greater QALYs improvements and lower costs than warfarin. Rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran 150 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, and warfarin resulted in net costs US dollar (USD) 8088, USD 8240, USD 8566, USD 8653, and USD 16 363 and net QALY 5.87, 6.017, 6.022, 5.98, and 5.829, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities of warfarin, rivaroxaban 20 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, and apixaban 5 mg being cost-effective of 2000 iterations were 0%, 0%, 29.4%, 33.2%, and 37.4%, respectively. ConclusionApixaban was the most cost-effective option compared with other DOACs and warfarin in the management of NVAF; this conclusion is consistent under all the tested uncertainty scenarios.