Cost‐effectiveness analysis of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation in China

Figures

• 

  Fig. 1. Representation of the Markov model. The four treatment options are shown on the left. “M”represents a Markov process with 4 health states. These health states are identical for each treatment option. “Min” represent state without incident or sequelae, “Mod” represent moderate disabilities, “Sev” represent completely disabilities , Die means death. All patients remain in the “Min”state until one of the five events occurs. NVAF, nonvalvular atrial fibrillation; IS, ischemic stroke; ICH, intracranial hemorrhage; ECH, extracranial hemorrhage; MI, myocardial infarction

• 

  Fig. 2. Tornado analysis (ICER). Cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (bars) of rivaroxaban compared to adjusted-dose warfarin as determined in tornado diagram over plausible ranges for all variables. The willingness-to-pay threshold of 202295.67 yuan per quality-adjusted life year are presented.

• 

  Fig. 3. Cost-effectiveness acceptance curve. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve results based on 1000 Monte Carlo simulations of the model. The curve presents the probability that the rivaroxaban regimen is cost-effective as a function of willingness-to-pay threshold

• 

  Fig. 4. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Rate scatter. Incremental cost-effectiveness scatterplot of the result of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Each point represents a simulation. Ellipse represents 95% confidence interval ellipse