Key result
Watchman LAAC saves costs and yields up to ~1.5 more QALYs versus warfarin and DOACs.
Why the study?
LAAC is cost-saving relative to oral anticoagulants in the US and Europe, but its cost-effectiveness in Japan had not been assessed.
Does left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device improve cost-effectiveness and quality-adjusted life years compared to warfarin and DOACs in 70-year-old patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Japan?
Does left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device improve cost-effectiveness and quality-adjusted life years compared to warfarin and DOACs in 70-year-old patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Japan?
Left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device is a cost-saving and quality-of-life improving strategy compared to warfarin and DOACs for stroke prophylaxis in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.
LAAC with Watchman may be cost-saving with QALY gains in Japanese NVAF; leaves open need for prospective confirmation before practice change.
AIMS: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has been demonstrated to be cost-saving relative to oral anticoagulants for stroke prophylaxis in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the United States and Europe. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of LAAC with the Watchman device relative to warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke risk reduction in NVAF from a Japanese public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with 70-year-old patients using a lifetime time horizon. LAAC clinical inputs were from pooled, 5-year PROTECT AF and PREVAIL trials; warfarin and DOAC inputs were from published meta-analyses. Baseline stroke and bleeding risks were from the SALUTE trial on LAAC. Cost inputs were from the Japanese Medical Data Vision database. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over the lifetime time horizon, LAAC was less costly than warfarin (savings of JPY 1,878,335, equivalent to US $17,600) and DOACs (savings of JPY 1,198,096, equivalent to US $11,226). LAAC also provided 1.500 more incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than warfarin and 0.996 more than DOACs. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, LAAC was cost-effective relative to warfarin and DOACs in 99.98% and 99.73% of simulations, respectively. LAAC dominated (had higher cumulative QALYs and was less costly than) warfarin and DOACs in 89.94% and 83.35% of simulations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over a lifetime time horizon, LAAC is cost-saving relative to warfarin and DOACs for stroke risk reduction in NVAF patients in Japan and is associated with improved quality-of-life.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamae et al. (2023) studied non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with Watchman vs. warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) was evaluated on Cost-effectiveness (costs and quality-adjusted life years). Left atrial appendage closure with Watchman was cost-saving relative to warfarin (JPY 1,878,335 saved) and DOACs (JPY 1,198,096 saved) and provided 1.500 and 0.996 more QALYs, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: