These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in a health resource-limited setting.
    Author: Wu B, Kun L, Liu X, He B.
    Journal: Cardiovasc Drugs Ther; 2014 Feb; 28(1):87-98. PubMed ID: 24048510.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of five alternative chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) management strategies: rivaroxaban, warfarin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, aspirin and no prevention. METHODS: An individual-level state-transition model was developed to track the lifetime disease course associated with AF. The clinical and utility data were derived from published studies. The cost data were estimated based on local charges and current Chinese practices. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty on the results. RESULTS: For base-case patients with a CHADS2 score of 3, the cost per additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained for rivaroxaban compared with no prevention, aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel and warfarin was $116,884, $153,944, $155,979 and $216,273, respectively. CHADS2 score had a substantial impact on the model outcomes for different prevention strategies. The time distribution of warfarin international normalised ratio (INR), stroke and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) risks, cost of rivaroxaban and utility of warfarin therapy had substantial impacts on the results. Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $16,350/QALY, no prevention strategy was the preferred therapy for a patient with a low risk for stroke and a high risk for ICH; aspirin was preferred for patients with a moderate risk for stroke and ICH; and warfarin was preferred for patients with a high risk for stroke and a low risk of ICH. CONCLUSION: In the context of limited health resources, rivaroxaban is unlikely to be cost-effective, although it provided more health benefits comparing with other strategies. Additionally, warfarin with good INR control might be more suitable for AF patients in developing regions.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]