Search

Background: Several studies have compared the cost effectiveness of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin using results from clinical trials evaluating NOACs. However, the time in therapeutic range (TTR) of warfarin groups ranged across clinical trials, and all were below the therapeutic goal of 70%. We compared the cost effectiveness of edoxaban 60 mg, apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, rivaroxaban 20 mg, and well-managed warfarin with a TTR of 70% in preventing stroke among patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk of bleeding.Methods: For the six treatments, we used a Markov state-transition model to quantify lifetime costs in $US and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We simulated relative risk ratios of clinical events with each NOAC versus warfarin with a TTR of 70% using published regression models that predict how the incidence of thrombotic or hemorrhagic events changes for each unit change in TTR. We re-ran our analysis for two other estimates of TTR: 65 and 75%.Results: Treatment with edoxaban 60 mg cost $US127,520/QALY gained compared with warfarin with a TTR of 70% and cost $US41,860/QALY gained compared with warfarin with a TTR of 65%. However, warfarin with a TTR of 75% was more effective and less expensive than all NOACs. For three levels of TTR, apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg were dominated strategies.Conclusions: The comparative cost effectiveness of edoxaban and warfarin is highly sensitive to TTR. At the $US100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, our results suggest that warfarin is the most cost-effective treatment for patients who can achieve a TTR of 70%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The rising prices of specialty drugs have prompted a debate about how medications are priced. With the average price of cancer drugs doubling in the last decade, the unsustainability of drug prices is especially concerning in oncology and hematology. The objective of this study was to compare the prices of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) approved in the last 20 years by the FDA across disease states., Study Design: We identified all indications approved by the FDA for mAbs from 1997 to 2016 and calculated the annual price of 1-year treatment for each mAb-indication combination as the product of the US average wholesale price per milligram and the recommended dose., Methods: We compared the annual price of treatment with each mAb across disease states using generalized linear models with gamma distribution and log link, controlling for route of administration, chemical structure, source, and time since FDA approval., Results: The average annual price of a mAb was $96,731, exceeding $100,000 for 34 mAb-indication combinations. Oncology and hematology mAbs represented 40% of the mAb-indication combinations approved, yet they accounted for more than 85% of those priced $100,000 or higher. After adjusting for factors that can affect production costs, the annual price of oncology or hematology mAbs was $149,622 higher than those used in cardiovascular or metabolic disorders; $98,981 higher than in immunology; $128,856 higher than in infectious diseases or allergy; and $106,830 higher than in ophthalmology (all P <.001)., Conclusions: The annual price of mAb therapies is about $100,000 higher in oncology and hematology than in other disease states.