Abstract

Objectives

Several studies have evaluated the economic evaluation of a group of medications known as novel oral anticoagulant drugs (NOACs) in recent years. The aim of this study is to review and systematically analyze the cost-utility studies results of warfarin compared with other NOAC drugs in atrial fibrillation patients.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to identify all studies evaluating the NOAC medications in comparison with warfarin. For this purpose, PubMed, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from 2013 to 2022. Articles were independently screened with inclusion criteria, and full texts were reviewed. First, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the articles. Then, the costs and outcomes of the studies were analyzed, and findings were appraised critically.

Results

A total of 84 costs-per-quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) cases were extracted from the studies in which the share of rivaroxaban, edoxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran were 31%, 13%, 29%, and 27%, respectively. The median cost per QALY of rivaroxaban, edoxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran was 21 910$/QALY, 22 096$/QALY, 17 765$/QALY, and 24 161$/QALY, respectively. Subgroup analysis based on perspective showed that dabigatran had the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and edoxaban had the lowest ICER value. Edoxaban and apixaban had the highest and the lowest cost per QALY from an insurance perspective, respectively.

Conclusion

Despite the differences and variations in the economic evaluation studies of NOAC drugs, these drugs have shown acceptable cost-effectiveness in developed and developing countries. Among NOAC drugs, apixaban has the lowest ICER and the highest cost-effectiveness.