Cost-Effectiveness of Dual Versus Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation and Recent PCI

Author(s)

Park TJ, Devine B
University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

OBJECTIVES: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are candidates for triple therapy with an anticoagulant and two antiplatelet agents. Triple therapy carries a significant risk of bleeding and several clinical trials have shown that dual therapy in which one antiplatelet agent is omitted carries significantly lower bleeding risk. In this study, we used a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of dual versus triple therapy using data from the recent AUGUSTUS trial.

METHODS: We created a Markov model with two treatment arms: dual therapy (anticoagulant + P2Y12 inhibitor) and triple therapy (anticoagulant + P2Y12 inhibitor + aspirin). We used event rates from the AUGUSTUS trial and cost and utility estimates from the medical literature. The following health states were modeled: well with AF (baseline), myocardial infarction, minor ischemic stroke, major ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, minor bleeding, major bleeding, and death. Patients were 70-years-old with AF and recent PCI and were followed for a lifetime horizon from the US healthcare system perspective. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (2019 USD), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS: Triple therapy resulted in total costs of $305,304 and 14.64 QALYs and dual therapy resulted in total costs of $347,208 and 14.98 QALYs. The ICER for dual therapy was $122,143/QALY. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the model was most sensitive to intracranial hemorrhage and ischemic stroke event rates. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated that dual therapy was cost-effective 54% of the time at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY and 61% of the time at a WTP of $150,000/QALY. Triple therapy was dominant in 26% of simulations and dual therapy was dominant in 12% of simulations, indicating uncertainty within the model.

CONCLUSIONS: Dual therapy is likely cost-effective compared to triple therapy albeit with a degree of uncertainty.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2021-05, ISPOR 2021, Montreal, Canada

Value in Health, Volume 24, Issue 5, S1 (May 2021)

Code

PCV23

Topic

Clinical Outcomes, Economic Evaluation

Topic Subcategory

Clinical Outcomes Assessment, Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis

Disease

Cardiovascular Disorders, Drugs

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×