Cost-Effectiveness of Dabigatran for Stroke Prophylaxis in Atrial Fibrillation

Background— Recent studies have investigated alternatives to warfarin for stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but whether these alternatives are cost-effective is unknown. Methods and Results— On the basis of the results from Randomized Evaluation of Long Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) and other trials, we developed a decision-analysis model to compare the cost and quality-adjusted survival of various antithrombotic therapies. We ran our Markov model in a hypothetical cohort of 70-year-old patients with AF using a cost-effectiveness threshold of 50 000/quality-adjusted life-year. We estimated the cost of dabigatran as US 9 a day. For a patient with an average risk of major hemorrhage (≈3%/y), the most cost-effective therapy depended on stroke risk. For patients with the lowest stroke rate (CHADS 2 stroke score of 0), only aspirin was cost-effective. For patients with a moderate stroke rate (CHADS 2 score of 1 or 2), warfarin was cost-effective unless the risk of hemorrhage was high or quality of international normalized ratio control was poor (time in the therapeutic range 72. 6%). Neither dabigatran 110 mg nor dual therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel) was cost-effective. Conclusions— Dabigatran 150 mg (twice daily) was cost-effective in AF populations at high risk of hemorrhage or high risk of stroke unless international normalized ratio control with warfarin was excellent. Warfarin was cost-effective in moderate-risk AF populations unless international normalized ratio control was poor.