OBJECTIVES: Historically, the gold standard for prevention of stroke and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and its associated diseases has been treatment with vitamin k antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin. While therapy is effective, it is associated with significant ADR’s such as bleeding, which requires consistent international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring. As a result, the final cost, which includes cost of therapy plus monitoring might not be cost-effective compared to newer oral anticoagulants such as edoxaban. The objective of this study is to determine if edoxaban is cost-effective in comparison to warfarin for prevention of stroke and deep vein thrombosis.

METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed data base with MeSH terms “warfarin”, “edoxaban”, and “cost-effectiveness”. The findings were compiled into a table illustrating Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY,) total costs, and quality-adjusted survival as the main findings of outcome measures. The data was then compared using U.S. dollars for total costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for QALY and quality-adjusted survival.

CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate that edoxaban is not only non-inferior to warfarin in prevention of stroke and DVT, but it is also cost-effective. However, more studies need to be conducted in order to further support our hypothesis.