COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF EDOXABAN COMPARED WITH OTHER LICENSED NOACS FOR THE PREVENTION OF STROKE AND SYSTEMIC EMBOLIC EVENTS IN THE UK
Author(s)
Claxton L1, Taylor M2, Lewis L2, Alexandre AF3, Harrington AE3, Bakhai A4, Brueggenjuergen B5
1York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, York, UK, 2York Health Economics Consortium, York, UK, 3Daiichi Sankyo Europe, Munich, Germany, 4Royal Free, Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals, London, UK, 5Steinbeis-University-Berlin, Berlin, Germany
In the absence of head-to-head clinical studies between NOACs, a network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of edoxaban compared with all treatments of interest. Where data were available, the analysis was based on patients with CHADS≥2; otherwise, the entire study population was used.
Health outcomes were assessed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Utilities and costs were extracted from the literature and the NHS reference cost database and discounted at 3.5% per annum. Outcomes were evaluated over a lifetime time horizon. The average age of patients entering the model was 72, as in the ENGAGE-AF study.
Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the effect of uncertainty in inputs on the results. RESULTS: Edoxaban was dominant compared with rivaroxaban and dabigatran 110 mg BD. Edoxaban was dominated by apixaban and dabigatran 150 mg BD. Lifetime differences between edoxaban and comparators ranged from £394 to -£787 and 0.08 to -0.08 QALYs. Sensitivity analyses indicate the findings were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Accepting the limitations of modelling with restricted data availability and absent head-to-head trials, this analysis suggests that edoxaban is associated with similar outcomes to the other NOACs in the UK setting. Edoxaban is dominant compared with the most widely prescribed once-daily NOAC, rivaroxaban. Both dabigatran and apixaban are given twice daily, and apixaban has a higher acquisition cost than the other NOACs.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Vol. 18, No. 7 (November 2015)
Code
PCV126
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Cardiovascular Disorders