Key result
Dabigatran was associated with lower adjusted per-patient-per-month total healthcare costs compared to rivaroxaban ($4,093 vs $4,636) and warfarin ($4,199 vs $4,872).
Why the study?
Does dabigatran reduce all-cause costs and healthcare resource utilization compared to apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin in newly-diagnosed adult non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients?
Cohort (n=136,990)
Does dabigatran reduce all-cause costs and healthcare resource utilization compared to apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin in newly-diagnosed adult non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients?
In real-world practice, dabigatran is associated with lower all-cause healthcare costs compared to rivaroxaban and warfarin, and similar costs to apixaban in patients with newly-diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Dabigatran was associated with lower costs than rivaroxaban or warfarin; leaves open effects versus apixaban and need for prospective validation in non-valvular AF.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gilligan et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) (n=136,990). Dabigatran vs. Apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin was evaluated on Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause cost (p=≤ .001). Dabigatran was associated with lower adjusted per-patient-per-month total healthcare costs compared to rivaroxaban ($4,093 vs $4,636) and warfarin ($4,199 vs $4,872).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: