Search

Objectives: Compare costs associated with all-cause healthcare resource use (HCRU), stroke/systemic thromboembolism (STE) and major bleedings (MB) between patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) initiating apixaban or other oral anticoagulants (OACs)., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the French healthcare claims database, including NVAF patients between 2014/01/01 and 2016/12/31, followed until 2016/12/31. We used 4 sub-cohorts of OAC-naive patients, respectively initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or VKAs. We matched patients initiating apixaban with patients initiating each other OACs using 1:n propensity score matching. All-cause HCRU and event-related costs by OAC treatment were estimated and compared between matched patients using generalised-linear models with gamma-distribution and two-part models., Results: There were 175,766 patients in the apixaban-VKA, 181,809 in the apixaban-rivaroxaban, and 42,490 in the apixaban-dabigatran matched cohorts. Patients initiating apixaban had significantly lower HCRU costs than patients initiating VKA (€1,105 vs. €1,578, p < 0.0001), dabigatran (€993 vs. €1,140, p < 0.0001) and rivaroxaban (€1,013 vs. €1,088 p < 0.0001). They have had significantly lower costs related to stroke/STE and MB than patients initiating VKA (respectively, €183 vs. €449 and €147 vs. €413; p < 0.0001), rivaroxaban (respectively, €145 vs. €197 and €129 vs. €193; p < 0.0001), and lower costs related to stroke/STE than patients initiating dabigatran (€135 vs. €192, p < 0.02). Costs related to MB were not significantly different in patients initiating apixaban and those initiating dabigatran (€119 vs. €149, p = 0.07)., Conclusions: HCRU and most event-related costs were lower in patients initiating apixaban compared to other OACs. Apixaban may be cost-saving compared to VKAs, and significantly cheaper than other DOACs, although cost differences are limited., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Data directly comparing trends in the use of different oral anticoagulants (OACs) among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) from different countries are limited. We addressed this using a large-scale network cohort study in the United States (US), Belgium, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK)., Methods: We used nine databases (claims or electronic health records) that had been converted into the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model with analysis performed using open-source analytical tools. We identified adults with AF and a first OAC prescription, either vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), from 2010 to 2017. We described time trends in use, continuation, and switching., Results: In 2010, 87.5%-99.8% of patients started on a VKA. By 2017, the majority started on a DOAC: 87.0% (US), 88.3% (Belgium), 93.1% (France), 88.4% (Germany), and 86.1%-86.7% (UK). In the UK, DOACs became the most common starting OAC in 2015, 2-3 years later than elsewhere. Apixaban was the most common starting OAC by 2017, 50.2%-57.8% (US), 31.4% (Belgium), 45.9% (France), 39.5% (Germany), and 49.8%-50.5% (UK), followed by rivaroxaban, 24.8%-32.5% (US), 25.7% (Belgium), 38.4% (France), 24.9% (Germany), and 30.2%-31.2% (UK). Long-term treatment was less common in the US than in Europe, especially the UK. A minority of patients switched from their index OAC in the short and long term., Conclusions: From 2010 to 2017, VKA use had significantly declined and DOAC use had significantly increased in the US and Europe. Apixaban was the most prescribed OAC in 2017, followed by rivaroxaban., Competing Interests: PV and AA are employees of Bayer AG (Germany). GB was an employee of Bayer AB (Sweden) at the time the study was carried out and is currently a paid consultant for Bayer AB (Sweden). HMS was an employee of IQVIA at the time the study was carried out, who received funding from Bayer to perform the data analysis. BR received consultancy fees for her work as an Intern at Bayer at the time the study was carried out. The authors declare that they have no other conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Pareen Vora et al.)

Objective: The goal of this study was to assess the differences between an ex ante and an ex post cost-effectiveness analysis of Dabigatran etexilate vs VKAs for the prevention of thromboembolic events in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients and to draw lessons on the design and use of real-world data for decision making., Methods: The same model was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness ratio using two sets of parameters. One set included the efficacy and safety outcomes data from RE-LY, the pivotal trial comparing Dabigatran to warfarin; cost data came from an ex ante publication. Outcomes data for the second set came from real-world data studies. Cost data were a mix of real-world data and other sources. Two treatment strategies were compared: treatment initiation by either Dabigatran or VKAs, followed by either VKAs or Dabigatran. A crude comparison of results was performed; the impact of data differences was then assessed. Probabilistic sensitivity results of the two analyses were compared., Results: With real-world evidence, Dabigatran at both dosages was more effective for the prevention of ischemic strokes, intra-cranial haemorrhages, with less major extra-cranial haemorrhages and a similar risk of myocardial infarction. Using clinical trial data, Dabigatran150 mg (resp. Dabigatran110 mg) as a first-line treatment vs VKAs yielded an ICER of € 8077/QALY (resp. € 13,116/QALY). Real-world evidence scenarios were cost-saving and more effective for both dosages., Conclusion: The reassessment of outcomes and cost data had an impact on results, improving the efficiency of Dabigatran. We identify methodological issues which should be discussed if post-launch RWE based cost-effectiveness data become a standard in HTA decision making.

Objective: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly prescribed to elderly people, but the epidemiologic data for this population remains scarce. We compared the elderly population taking DOACs and those not taking DOACs (noDOAC)., Method: We included individuals over 75 years old, affiliated to Mutualité Sociale Agricole of Burgundy (a French regional health insurance agency), who had been refunded for a prescribed DOAC between 1st and 30th September 2017. The DAOC group (DAOCG) and noDOAC group (noDOACG) were compared in terms of demographic conditions, registered chronic diseases (RCD), and number and types of prescribed drugs. In the DOACG, we compared the type of prescribing physician and laboratory monitoring for novel prescriptions (initial) and prescription refills (≥ 3 months)., Results: Of the 19 798 included patients, 1518 (7.7%) were prescribed DAOCs and 18 280 (92.3%) were not. Mean and median age was 85 years in the 2 groups (DOACG and noDOACG). In the DOACG, there were more men (50% vs 40.2%), more RCD (88.9% vs 68.7%) and more drugs per prescription (6 ± 2.8 vs 5 ± 2.9) (All P < .01). The DOACG also took more antihypertensive drugs. The most commonly prescribed DOACs were apixaban (42.9%) followed by rivaroxaban (38.4%) and dabigatran (18.6%). Complete blood count, serum creatinine and coagulation function tests were requested for 69.4%, 75% and 22.2%, respectively, of patients prescribed DAOCs., Conclusions: The DOACG had more RCD and drugs per prescription than the noDOACG; routine laboratory monitoring was insufficient. What's known Platelet aggregation inhibitors (low-dose) are recommended for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients suffering from symptomatic atherosclerosis. The main risk of this treatment is bleeding. What's new A prescription for platelet aggregation inhibitors was found in 34% of geriatric inpatients in this prospective study. Compliance to guidelines was better for symptomatic peripheral artery disease than for primary prevention in accordance with recent publications. Geriatric comorbidities had no impact on the prescription of platelet aggregation inhibitors. Underuse of platelet aggregation inhibitors was observed in 11.3% of cases and overuse in 13.7% of cases., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The new direct oral anticoagulants (DOA) such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban or apixaban are an evolution in the management of patients requiring curative anticoagulation. However, behind the simplicity of prescribing and monitoring, several questions remain about their daily use. The aim of this prospective study was to measure the feelings of general practitioners (GP), angiologists (AP) and cardiologists (CP), potential prescribers of this new anticoagulant family., Method: Between December 2012 and May 2013, a questionnaire including five open questions and 11 questions using a positioning on an analogic visual scale (AVS 0 to 10) was subjected to GP, AP and CP in Alsace., Results: Responses from 224 physicians (150 GP, 35 AP and 39 CP) were collected. Thus, 83% of GP, 83% of AP and 100% of CP were prescribers of DOA. However, among these prescribing doctors, the feeling was not the same and the trend of prescription was lower in GP (2.0 [1.1-3.2] AVS units) than in AP (3.1 [2.0-5.6]) and in CP (5.0 [1.2-8.7]) (P<0.0001 in multivariate analysis). The female doctors tended to prescribe DOA in younger patients than male doctors (respectively 66.1 [52.5-76.7] vs. 75.0 [65.7-81.0] years; P=0.004). The DOA were more considered as progress by AP and CP (respectively 7.8 [5.3-9.0] and 7.9 [7.0-8.7] AVSu) than by GP (6.1 [4.8-8.2] AVSu; P=0.02 in multivariate analysis). The answer about the eventual replacement of vitamin K antagonists by the DOA was very mixed whatever the practitioner group (5.1 [3.0-7.8] AVSu; P=0.139). The ease to use and the lack of biological monitoring were the main arguments leading to the prescription but the attitude of practitioners was very balanced by the lack of experience on the bleeding risk and the lack of available antidote., Conclusions: If the DOA are considered as an improvement for the physicians, the enthusiasm remains cautious whatever the type of practiced medicine. The results of clinical trials and the clinical experience should better appreciate the ongoing change in the field of anticoagulation., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier SAS.)