Key result
Rivaroxaban was cost-effective for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Portugal, yielding an ICER of €3895/QALY versus warfarin and €6697/QALY versus real-world prescribing.
Why the study?
Is rivaroxaban cost-effective compared to warfarin or real-world prescribing for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Portugal?
Is rivaroxaban cost-effective compared to warfarin or real-world prescribing for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Portugal?
Rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin or real-world prescribing for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Portugal.
May inform Portuguese reimbursement decisions; leaves open generalizability beyond modeled assumptions.
To project the long-term cost-effectiveness of treating non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients for stroke prevention with rivaroxaban compared to warfarin in Portugal. A Markov model was used that included health and treatment states describing the management and consequences of AF and its treatment. The model's time horizon was set at a patient's lifetime and each cycle at three months. The analysis was conducted from a societal perspective and a 5% discount rate was applied to both costs and outcomes. Treatment effect data were obtained from the pivotal phase III ROCKET AF trial. The model was also populated with utility values obtained from the literature and with cost data derived from official Portuguese sources. The outcomes of the model included life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costs, and associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Extensive sensitivity analyses were undertaken to further assess the findings of the model. As there is evidence indicating underuse and underprescription of warfarin in Portugal, an additional analysis was performed using a mixed comparator composed of no treatment, aspirin, and warfarin, which better reflects real-world prescribing in Portugal. This cost-effectiveness analysis produced an ICER of €3895/QALY for the base-case analysis (vs. warfarin) and of €6697/QALY for the real-world prescribing analysis (vs. mixed comparator). The findings were robust when tested in sensitivity analyses. The results showed that rivaroxaban may be a cost-effective alternative compared with warfarin or real-world prescribing in Portugal. Estimar o rácio custo-efetividade a longo-prazo associados à utilização de rivaroxabano na prevenção de acidente vascular cerebral em doentes com fibrilhação auricular (FA) não-valvular relativamente a varfarina em Portugal. Foi utilizado um modelo de Markov que representa os estádios representativos da progressão da FA e do seu tratamento. O horizonte temporal modelizado descreve o tempo de vida dos doentes e cada ciclo tem a duração de três meses. A análise foi desenvolvida na perspetiva da sociedade, tendo sido aplicada uma taxa de atualização de cinco por cento para custos e consequências. Os efeitos do tratamento foram obtidos no ensaio clínico de fase III ROCKET AF. Adicionalmente, no modelo foram incluídos valores de utilidade provenientes da literatura e estimativas de custos nacionais. Os outcomes avaliados no modelo incluem anos de vida incrementais, anos de vida ajustados pela qualidade de vida incrementais (AVAQ), custos incrementais e rácio custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI). Foram desenvolvidas análises de sensibilidade com o objetivo de avaliar os resultados do modelo. A evidência existente indica subutilização e subprescrição de varfarina em Portugal e, por esta razão, foi desenvolvida uma análise adicional com um comparador misto, constituído por não tratamento, ácido acetilsalicílico e varfarina, o que reflete melhor o «mundo real de prescrição». RCEI obtido varia entre 3 895€/AVAQ para o cenário-base (relativamente varfarina) e 6 697€/AVAQ para o «mundo real de prescrição» (relativamente comparador misto). As análises de sensibilidade demonstraram que os resultados são robustos. Os resultados sugerem que rivaroxabano pode constituir uma alternativa custo-efetiva comparativamente a varfarina ou «mundo real de prescrição» em Portugal.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morais et al. (2014) studied Non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin and a mixed comparator (no treatment, aspirin, and warfarin) was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (ICER €3895/QALY). Rivaroxaban was cost-effective for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Portugal, yielding an ICER of €3895/QALY versus warfarin and €6697/QALY versus real-world prescribing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: