Comparison between new oral anticoagulants and warfarin. The purpose of this analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of apixaban 5 mg bid versus high and lowdose edoxaban 60 mg and 30 mg once daily as intended starting dose. Every year, prescription hope works with some of the most prominent insurance organizations across the united states. It is available in multiple generic and brand versions. Apixaban for reduction in stroke and other thromboembolic. To compare the cost effectiveness of apixaban vs warfarin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation af. Cost effectiveness of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.
In apixaban for reduction in stroke and other thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation aristotle, apixaban vs. Warfarin coumadin, jantoven is an inexpensive drug used to treat or prevent clots in the veins, arteries, lungs, or heart. We sought to determine the cost effectiveness of using apixaban for stroke prevention. Costeffectiveness of apixaban compared with warfarin for stroke. Nevertheless, the high cost of apixaban limits its widespread use. Apixaban therapy for atrial fibrillation afib patients provides clinical benefits and is more cost effective for u. Apixaban was shown to be superior to adjusteddose warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation af and. We quantified the cost and qualityadjusted life expectancy resulting from apixaban 5 mg twice daily compared with those from warfarin therapy targeted to an. Apixaban had the highest qalys and the highest costs.
New bloodthinning drug less likely to cause bleeding than warfarin. Next, the authors assigned an incremental cost to the medical resources associated with endpoint events stroke and major bleeding. The cost of warfarin included the cost of drug plus 14 inr tests per year and the cms reimbursement for 90day anticoagulation management. Warfarin and acenocoumarol were assumed to have therapeutic equivalence. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily is the only doac for which the 95% confidence interval around incremental net benefit is positive, suggesting that apixaban is cost effective compared with warfarin. Also statistically comparable were emergencydepartment visits and use of. Harrington ar1, armstrong ep, nolan pe jr, malone dc. Effect of apixaban compared with warfarin on coagulation.
Apr 12, 2017 apixaban therapy for atrial fibrillation afib patients provides clinical benefits and is more cost effective for u. However, for patients at risk for stroke in afib, eliquis is the only noac that is better than warfarin. In addition, there was a significant reduction in the risk of bleeding in patients treated with apixiban compared to warfarin. Compare eliquis vs warfarin headtohead with other drugs for uses, ratings, cost, side effects, interactions and more. In comparison, treatment with apixaban led to a qualityadjusted life expectancy of 4.
Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. The costeffectiveness of apixaban versus warfarin in patients with. Costeffectiveness of apixaban versus other new oral. However, while the new medicine eliquis offers some health benefits over warfarin. Warfarin is still the most prescribed anticoagulant today, but noacs as a whole have been quickly gaining ground. Generic warfarin is covered by most medicare and insurance plans, but some pharmacy coupons or cash prices may be lower.
Apixaban may be better choice than rivaroxaban for dvt patients. The study is the first to compare apixaban, a noac, to traditional warfarin in terms of the risk for intracranial haemorrhage. Of note, many such analyses have compared an indivi dual noac ie, apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran versus warfarin by using data from randomized. Compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban, apixaban is the only one that can claim superiority over warfarin for stroke prevention, bleeding, and mortality together. Costeffectiveness of apixaban vs warfarin for secondary. Below, we compare cost, side effects, and hassle of warfarin alternatives to see which one is best. One big study of more than 18,000 patients comparing eliquis with warfarin showed. New oral anticoagulants apixaban eliquis, dabigatran. Based on the results from the apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation aristotle trial and other published studies, we. Cost effectiveness was most sensitive to cost of apixaban. Apixaban was superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism, caused less bleeding. Patients can start on apixaban at the time of diagnosis without use of initial heparin therapy, a considerable cost savings. Directacting oral anticoagulants doacs, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban. The incremental cost, including the costs of anticoagulant and monitoring, was within.
Costutility analysis of apixaban versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation. Exceptions are switching of therapy to or from the medicine, or when. Although the proportion of patients reported to discontinue treatment in the phase iii trials were different 21% for dabigatran vs 17% for warfarin, 24% for rivaroxaban vs 22% for warfarin, and 25% for apixaban vs 28% for warfarin within approximately 2 years of followup, the differences in trial design made it infeasible to perform a cross. Jul 10, 2014 compared with warfarin, all of the noacs resulted in fewer strokes but only apixaban was also associated with fewer episodes of major bleeding table. Compare apixaban vs warfarin comprehensive analysis by. Apixaban use increased lifeexpectancy and quality adjusted lifeexpectancy on average by 0. Eliquis apixaban, cost, side effects, dosing, uses. Coumadin warfarin is a cheap and effective medicine that prevents new blood clots. Each line represents a cost effectiveness threshold representing the maximum amount society is willing to pay for a qaly gain. Costeffectiveness of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and.
For patients in whom warfarin is contraindicated however, apixaban offers an effective, safe anticoagulation alternative to warfarin. Eliquis apixaban is an effective way to prevent blood clots from forming in your veins, but you have to take it twice a day, and your doctor might have to change the dose a lot. Objective we aim to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the noac apixaban versus other noacs dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban and vka, for stroke prevention in patients with atrial. Participants 2 231 warfarin, 7744 dabigatran, 37 863 rivaroxaban, and 18 223 apixaban users without anticoagulant prescriptions for 12 months before study entry, subgrouped into 103 270 patients with atrial fibrillation and 92 791 without atrial fibrillation between 2011 and 2016. Using standard methods, we created a markov decision model based on the estimated cost of apixaban and data from the apixaban. We sought to determine the cost effectiveness of using apixaban. Apixaban is a novel oral direct factor xa inhibitor that. Thus apixaban 5 mg twice daily is the appropriate dose for most patients with high body weight. Medical or surgical intervention was similar among patients with nonmajor bleeding on warfarin versus apixaban 24. Costeffectiveness of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban. Costeffectiveness of apixaban versus warfarin and aspirin.
May, 20 the incremental cost effectiveness ratio for apixaban vs. Except where indicated otherwise, each chart shows the cost of 1. Apixaban represents an important addition to the limited armamentarium of stroke prevention therapies for patients with af. Costeffectiveness of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. The estimated incremental costeffectiveness ratio was. A lifetime on the newer agent was cost effective within us reasonable norms but didnt cut overall costs much by improving outcomes, mostly because apixaban itself is far costlier than warfarin. A probabilistic sensitivity analyses for apixaban vs. Eliquis apixaban and coumadin warfarin are anticoagulants blood thinners used to reduce blood clotting and reduce the risk of stroke, heart attack, and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Compare apixaban vs warfarin headtohead with other drugs for uses, ratings, cost, side effects, interactions and more. Methods based on the results from the apixaban versus. Compared with warfarin, all of the noacs resulted in fewer strokes but only apixaban was also associated with fewer episodes of major bleeding table. Below, we compare cost, side effects, and hassle of warfarin alternatives to. If your eliquis apixaban cost is too high, we can help you separately from whatever coverage you currently have. The vitamin k antagonist, warfarin, has a long halflife and narrow therapeutic range necessitating regular monitoring and is a common cause of iatrogenic hospital admission.
Exceptions are switching of therapy to or from the medicine, or. Is apixaban therapy more costeffective than warfarin. Backgroundvitamin k antagonists are highly effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but have several limitations. Warfarin has been shown to have the highest nonpersistence and apixaban and rivaroxaban the lowest. Based on the results from the apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation aristotle trial and other published studies, we constructed a markov model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of apixaban versus warfarin from the medicare perspective. Apixaban is a cost effective alternative to warfarin in warfarin suitable candidates and also compares well with aspirin in patients who cannot take the vitamin k antagonist. There in an ongoing debate amongst medical professionals concerning the effectiveness and safety of warfarin. The primary efficacy outcome of stroke or systemic embolism was significantly reduced in the apixaban arm as compared with warfarin 1.
Cost effectiveness analysis of apixaban 5 mg twice daily vs acenocoumarol 5 mgday in the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in spain. Warfarin therapy resulted in a qualityadjusted life expectancy of 3. The resulting cost per additional qaly was well below a willingnesstopay threshold in sweden of sek 500,000 and even below a threshold of sek 100,000 base case icers. Evaluate the costeffectiveness of apixaban versus other noacs and warfarin, during hospitalization in the private brazilian health system. Mar 07, 2019 before eliquis and xarelto, people mostly relied on warfarin coumadin which came to market 64 years ago. Cost comparison charts october 2019 introduction the charts included within this report are organised by bnf classification legacy and show comparative costs at the nhs basic price1,2 as of october 2019 for selected agents. However, lowdose apixaban and rivaroxaban were also linked to a. Our national advocacy program does not have medication tiers, copays, or deductibles. Apr 02, 2017 atrial fibrillation, warfarin, apixaban, ntracranial haemorrhage patients with atrial fibrillation have a substantially reduced risk of dangerous bleeding in the brain intracranial haemorrhage when taking the newer anticoagulant apixaban compared to those taking warfarin, according to a new study published in the j. This sounds like its not even close, but the devil is in the details. Learn about eliquis apixaban cost, dosing, side effects, and prescribing information for preventing blood clots thinning blood. Costeffectiveness analysis of apixaban 5mg twice daily vs acenocoumarol. B probabilistic sensitivity analyses for apixaban vs. Objectives compare the effect of apixaban and warfarin on coagulation and primary haemostasis biomarkers in atrial fibrillation af.
It should be noted that there are no direct study comparisons between the different noacs to date. Risks and benefits of direct oral anticoagulants versus. Costeffectiveness of apixaban compared with warfarin for. The findings, derived from randomized trial data, were published online. Costutility analysis of apixaban versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation patients with chronic kidney disease. Costeffectiveness of apixaban versus other noacs and warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin. Includes uses for stroke, atrial fibrillation, dvt, pe. The oral direct factor xa inhibitor, apixaban, was compared with warfarin in atrial fibrillation. New oral anticoagulants apixaban eliquis, dabigatran pradaxa and rivaroxaban xarelto. Dec 11, 2014 new oral anticoagulants apixaban eliquis, dabigatran pradaxa and rivaroxaban xarelto.
Costeffectiveness of apixaban compared with edoxaban for. It requires regular blood tests and youll need to eat, exercise, and take your medicines consistently. Nov 28, 2017 the risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most doacs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some doacs than warfarin. You may have heard about eliquis apixaban and warfarin if you have ever been diagnosed with a condition that warrants the use of an. Eliquis apixaban and xarelto rivaroxaban are both in a new group of anticoagulant. The purpose of this analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of apixaban 5 mg bid versus high and lowdose edoxaban 60 mg and 30 mg once daily as intended starting dose strategies for stroke prevention in patients from a uk national health service perspective. Nov 09, 2016 there in an ongoing debate amongst medical professionals concerning the effectiveness and safety of warfarin in comparison to the nonvitamin k antagonist oral anticoagulants noacssuch as eliquis, xarelto, savaysa, and pradaxafor patients with atrial fibrillation.
Webmd describes how warfarin compares to new blood thinners that are prescribed to prevent blood clots and stroke. However, for patients at risk for stroke in afib, eliquis is the only noac that is better than warfarin in the prevention of stroke and results in fewer bleeding complications. To compare the costeffectiveness of apixaban vs warfarin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation af. Comparison between new oral anticoagulants and warfarin warfarin was the mainstay of oral anticoagulant therapy until the recent discovery of more precise targets for therapy. Eliquis apixaban and coumadin warfarin are anticoagulants blood thinners used to reduce blood clotting and reduce the risk of stroke, heart attack, and systemic embolism in patients. Reductions in mortality, stroke, and bleeding observed in aristotle translate to significant increases in life expectancy. Methods the biomarker substudy from the apixaban for reduction in stroke and other thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation trial included 4850 patients with af randomised to treatment with apixaban or warfarin.
Before eliquis and xarelto, people mostly relied on warfarin coumadin which came to market 64 years ago. Eliquis apixaban and xarelto rivaroxaban are both in a new group of. Background apixaban was shown to be superior to adjusteddose warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation af and at least one additional risk factor for stroke, and associated with reduced rates of hemorrhage. Itll be worth every mile you have to drive to get there versus taking the. Oct 02, 2012 to compare the cost effectiveness of apixaban vs warfarin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation af. Apixaban most costeffective of new oral anticoagulants. Apixaban costeffective compared with warfarin or aspirin. The efficacy and safety of apixaban versus warfarin appears to be similar in patients with very high body weight when compared with those without very high body weight. Costeffectiveness of apixaban vs warfarin for secondary stroke. Oral anticoagulants for prevention of stroke in atrial. Apixaban costeffective vs warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Apixaban may be better choice than rivaroxaban for dvt. Halflife of r warfarin is 3789 hours and for s warfarin is 2143 hours while for apixaban is about 12 hours.
675 896 788 564 316 362 267 493 909 1481 1229 644 67 573 310 1303 439 1600 89 1545 1064 520 279 23 1112 453 732 1189 1427 653 355 57 1022 1087 950