Why the study?
Does apixaban reduce health-care costs compared to other oral anticoagulants in elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Does apixaban reduce health-care costs compared to other oral anticoagulants in elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
In elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, apixaban initiation is associated with lower all-cause and bleeding-related healthcare costs compared to rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and warfarin.
Apixaban was associated with lower costs in elderly NVAF; leaves open causal effects and need for RCT confirmation before practice change.
In this study, all-cause, stroke/systemic embolism (SE)-related, and major bleeding (MB)-related health-care costs among elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) initiating treatment with different oral anticoagulants (OACs) were compared. Patients ≥65 years of age initiating OACs, including apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and warfarin, were identified from the Humana Research Database between January 1, 2013, and September 30, 2015. Propensity score matching was used to separately match the different OAC cohorts with the apixaban cohort. All-cause health-care costs and stroke/SE-related and MB-related medical costs per patient per month (PPPM) were compared using generalized linear or 2-part regression models. Compared to apixaban, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher all-cause health-care costs (US$2234 vs US$1846 PPPM, P < .001) and MB-related medical costs (US$106 vs US$47 PPPM, P < .001), dabigatran was associated with significantly higher all-cause health-care costs (US$1980 vs US$1801 PPPM, P = .007), and warfarin was associated with significantly higher all-cause health-care costs (US$2386 vs US$1929 PPPM, P < .001), stroke/SE-related medical costs (US$42 vs US$18 PPPM, P < .001), and MB-related medical costs (US$132 vs US$51 PPPM, P < .001). Among elderly patients with NVAF, other OACs were associated with higher all-cause health-care costs than apixaban.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deitelzweig et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: