Search

Aims: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) prevalence increases with age. Hence, evaluating the economic burden among older-aged patients is vital. This study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among newly-diagnosed older-aged NVAF patients treated with warfarin, rivaroxaban, or apixaban vs. dabigatran. Materials and Methods: Newly-diagnosed older-aged (aged ≥65 years) NVAF patients initiating dabigatran, warfarin, rivaroxaban, or apixaban (first prescription date = index date) from 01JAN2010-31DEC2015 and with continuous enrollment for ≥12 months pre-index date were included from 100% Medicare database. Patient data were assessed until drug discontinuation/switch/dose change/death/disenrollment/study end (up to 12 months). Dabigatran initiators were 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) with warfarin, rivaroxaban, or apixaban initiators. Generalized linear models were used to compare all-cause HRU and costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM) between the matched cohorts. Results: After PSM with dabigatran, 70,531 warfarin, 51,673 rivaroxaban, and 25,209 apixaban patients were identified. Dabigatran patients had significantly fewer generalized-linear-model-adjusted PPPM hospitalizations (0.114 vs. 0.123; 0.111 vs. 0.121), and outpatient visits (2.864 vs. 4.201; 2.839 vs. 2.949) than warfarin and rivaroxaban patients, respectively, but had significantly more PPPM hospitalizations (0.103 vs. 0.090) and outpatient visits (2.780 vs. 2.673) than apixaban patients (all p  < .0001). Dabigatran patients incurred significantly lower adjusted total PPPM costs ($3,309 vs. $3,362; $3,285 vs. $3,474) than warfarin and rivaroxaban patients, respectively (all p  < .01) but higher total PPPM costs ($3,192 vs. $2,986) than apixaban patients (all p  < .0001). Limitations: This study is subject to the inherent limitations of any claims dataset, including potential bias from coding errors and identification of medical conditions using diagnosis codes as opposed to clinical evidence. Medications filled over-the-counter or provided as samples by the physician are never captured in claims data. Conclusions: Newly-diagnosed older-aged NVAF patients initiating dabigatran incurred significantly lower adjusted all-cause HRU and costs than warfarin and rivaroxaban patients but higher adjusted HRU and costs than apixaban patients.

Background: This is one of the first head-to-head real-world evidence studies comparing stroke-related and bleed-related healthcare and resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating oral anticoagulants., Methods: Adult NVAF patients newly diagnosed and treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin between 10/01/2010 and 12/31/2014 were identified using MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. Per-patient-per-month stroke and bleed-related HCRU and costs were reported., Results: Dabigatran patients were matched 1:1 to 26,592 rivaroxaban and 33,024 warfarin patients (mean age=68 years). Compared to rivaroxaban, dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related inpatient and outpatient HCRU (0.004 vs. 0.005; 0.099 vs. 0.145) and significantly lower adjusted bleed-related costs ($116 vs. $172), all p <0.05. Compared to warfarin, dabigatran patients had significantly lower stroke-related outpatient visits (0.034 vs. 0.048, p<0.001) and higher bleed-related outpatient visits (0.101 vs. 0.091, p=0.045). Multivariate adjusted bleed-related costs were significantly lower for dabigatran patients than warfarin patients ($94 vs. $138, p<0.001)., Conclusions: The results suggest that dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related HCRU and costs than rivaroxaban patients, and lower outpatient stroke-related HCRU, higher bleed-related outpatient HCRU, and lower bleed-related costs than warfarin patients. It provides valuable stroke-related and bleed-related HCRU and costs information among commercially insured and Medicare patients.

Objectives: With the approval of new non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), it is anticipated that their introduction may change NVAF treatment patterns; however, there is limited supporting real-world evidence. This study investigated guideline-recommended oral anticoagulation (OAC) treatment and persistence in newly diagnosed patients with NVAF to understand demographic and clinical characteristics., Design: Retrospective observational administrative claims study in the USA., Setting: Patients with NVAF with ≥1 pharmacy claim for OAC (warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or apixaban) and no atrial fibrillation diagnosis within 12 months prior to the first claim were identified in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database between 1 November 2010 and 30 November 2013., Participants: 45 092 patients with NVAF were included., Outcomes: The proportion of OAC-treated patients was stratified by CHADS 2 score. Treatment persistence was measured from OAC initiation to discontinuation, end of eligibility or end of study period (30 November 2014), whichever occurred first., Results: Almost half of the patients (41.1%) received an OAC. The proportion treated differed slightly in baseline stroke risk (CHADS 2 <2: 39.8%; CHADS 2 =2 or 3: 42.4%; and CHADS 2 >3: 40.3%: p<0.001). Treated patients were slightly younger (70±12.2 vs 71±14.3 years; p<0.001), more likely male (59.7% vs 52.5%; p<0.001) and had a slightly elevated stroke risk (CHADS 2 : 2.03±1.3 vs 1.98±1.4; p<0.001) and a lower bleeding risk (HEMORR 2 HAGES: 2.55±1.8 vs 2.80±1.9; p<0.001) relative to untreated patients. Overall, patients with higher CHADS 2 scores had higher HEMORR 2 HAGES scores. The mean follow-up was 2.25 years (2.25±0.85) and 72.7% of patients discontinued OACs; nearly 25% within 3 months and 55% within 12 months. The mean time to discontinuation was 255±249 days., Conclusions: The proportion of patients with NVAF who received OAC treatment was lower than previously reported and differed slightly by stroke risk. Patients with an elevated stroke risk had a higher bleeding risk, suggesting that clinicians may incorporate both in the treatment decision., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors declare: financial support for the submitted work from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc (BIPI); HealthCore has received a research grant from BIPI during the conduct of the study; JFE, CW and SS are employees of BIPI; and HealthCore receives funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies to perform various research studies outside of the submitted work., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objectives: Compare costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among newly-diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients newly treated with dabigatran vs apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin., Methods: Newly-diagnosed adult NVAF patients initiating dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin (index event) between October 1, 2010-December 31, 2014 were identified using MarketScan claims data, and followed until medication discontinuation, switch, inpatient death, enrollment end, or study end (December 31, 2015). Dabigatran patients were propensity-score matched 1:1 separately with apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin patients. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause cost, HCRU, and 30-day re-admissions were reported. Costs were analyzed using generalized linear models., Results: Final cohorts, each matched with dabigatran patients, included 8,857 apixaban patients, 26,592 rivaroxaban patients, and 33,046 warfarin patients. Dabigatran patients had lower adjusted PPPM total healthcare, inpatient, and outpatient costs compared to rivaroxaban ($4,093 vs $4,636, $1,476 vs $1,862, and $2,016 vs $2,121, respectively, all p ≤ .001) and warfarin ($4,199 vs $4,872, $1,505 vs $1,851, and $2,049 vs $2,514, respectively, all p < .001). Adjusted costs were similar for dabigatran and apixaban. Dabigatran patients had significantly fewer hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and pharmacy claims than rivaroxaban patients (0.06 vs 0.07, 4.84 vs 4.96 and 4.80 vs 4.93, respectively, all p < .020) and warfarin patients (0.06 vs 0.07, 4.77 vs 6.88, and 4.76 vs 5.89, respectively, all p < .001). Dabigatran patients had similar hospitalizations to apixaban, but higher outpatient visits (4.70 vs 4.31) and pharmacy claims (4.86 vs 4.61), both p < .001., Conclusions: This real-world study found adjusted all-cause costs were lower for dabigatran compared to rivaroxaban and warfarin patients and similar to apixaban patients.