Time to Cost-Effectiveness Following Stroke Reduction Strategies in AF Warfarin Versus NOACs Versus LAA Closure

Vivek Y. Reddy, Ronald L. Akehurst, Shannon O. Armstrong, Stacey L. Amorosi, Stephen M. Beard, David Holmes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and nonwarfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged as safe and effective alternatives to warfarin for stroke prophylaxis in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Objectives This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of warfarin, NOACs, and LAAC with the Watchman device (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) for stroke risk reduction in patients with nonvalvular AF at multiple time points over a lifetime horizon. Methods A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of LAAC, NOACs, and warfarin from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over a lifetime (20-year) horizon. Patients were 70 years of age and at moderate risk for stroke and bleeding. Clinical event rates, stroke outcomes, and quality of life information were drawn predominantly from PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) 4-year data and meta-analyses of warfarin and NOACs. Costs for stroke risk reduction therapies, treatment of associated acute events, and long-term care following disabling stroke were presented in 2015 U.S. dollars. Results Relative to warfarin, LAAC was cost-effective at 7 years ($42,994/quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]), and NOACs were cost-effective at 16 years ($48,446/QALY). LAAC was dominant over NOACs by year 5 and warfarin by year 10. At 10 years, LAAC provided more QALYs than warfarin and NOACs (5.855 vs. 5.601 vs. 5.751, respectively). In sensitivity analyses, LAAC remained cost-effective relative to warfarin ($41,470/QALY at 11 years) and NOACs ($21,964/QALY at 10 years), even if procedure costs were doubled. Conclusions Both NOACs and LAAC with the Watchman device were cost-effective relative to warfarin, but LAAC was also found to be cost-effective and to offer better value relative to NOACs. The results of this analysis should be considered when formulating policy and practice guidelines for stroke prevention in AF.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2728-2739
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume66
Issue number24
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 22 2015

Fingerprint

Atrial Appendage
Warfarin
Anticoagulants
Atrial Fibrillation
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Stroke
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Costs and Cost Analysis
Risk Reduction Behavior
Equipment and Supplies
Medicaid
Long-Term Care
Medicare
Practice Guidelines
Meta-Analysis
Quality of Life
Hemorrhage

Keywords

  • apixaban
  • dabigatran
  • edoxaban
  • quality of life
  • rivaroxaban
  • Watchman

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Time to Cost-Effectiveness Following Stroke Reduction Strategies in AF Warfarin Versus NOACs Versus LAA Closure. / Reddy, Vivek Y.; Akehurst, Ronald L.; Armstrong, Shannon O.; Amorosi, Stacey L.; Beard, Stephen M.; Holmes, David.

In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 66, No. 24, 22.12.2015, p. 2728-2739.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Reddy, Vivek Y. ; Akehurst, Ronald L. ; Armstrong, Shannon O. ; Amorosi, Stacey L. ; Beard, Stephen M. ; Holmes, David. / Time to Cost-Effectiveness Following Stroke Reduction Strategies in AF Warfarin Versus NOACs Versus LAA Closure. In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2015 ; Vol. 66, No. 24. pp. 2728-2739.
@article{53bba8910b6c4114b2679adf567a490c,
title = "Time to Cost-Effectiveness Following Stroke Reduction Strategies in AF Warfarin Versus NOACs Versus LAA Closure",
abstract = "Background Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and nonwarfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged as safe and effective alternatives to warfarin for stroke prophylaxis in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Objectives This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of warfarin, NOACs, and LAAC with the Watchman device (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) for stroke risk reduction in patients with nonvalvular AF at multiple time points over a lifetime horizon. Methods A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of LAAC, NOACs, and warfarin from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over a lifetime (20-year) horizon. Patients were 70 years of age and at moderate risk for stroke and bleeding. Clinical event rates, stroke outcomes, and quality of life information were drawn predominantly from PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) 4-year data and meta-analyses of warfarin and NOACs. Costs for stroke risk reduction therapies, treatment of associated acute events, and long-term care following disabling stroke were presented in 2015 U.S. dollars. Results Relative to warfarin, LAAC was cost-effective at 7 years ($42,994/quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]), and NOACs were cost-effective at 16 years ($48,446/QALY). LAAC was dominant over NOACs by year 5 and warfarin by year 10. At 10 years, LAAC provided more QALYs than warfarin and NOACs (5.855 vs. 5.601 vs. 5.751, respectively). In sensitivity analyses, LAAC remained cost-effective relative to warfarin ($41,470/QALY at 11 years) and NOACs ($21,964/QALY at 10 years), even if procedure costs were doubled. Conclusions Both NOACs and LAAC with the Watchman device were cost-effective relative to warfarin, but LAAC was also found to be cost-effective and to offer better value relative to NOACs. The results of this analysis should be considered when formulating policy and practice guidelines for stroke prevention in AF.",
keywords = "apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, quality of life, rivaroxaban, Watchman",
author = "Reddy, {Vivek Y.} and Akehurst, {Ronald L.} and Armstrong, {Shannon O.} and Amorosi, {Stacey L.} and Beard, {Stephen M.} and David Holmes",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "22",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.084",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "66",
pages = "2728--2739",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Cardiology",
issn = "0735-1097",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "24",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Time to Cost-Effectiveness Following Stroke Reduction Strategies in AF Warfarin Versus NOACs Versus LAA Closure

AU - Reddy, Vivek Y.

AU - Akehurst, Ronald L.

AU - Armstrong, Shannon O.

AU - Amorosi, Stacey L.

AU - Beard, Stephen M.

AU - Holmes, David

PY - 2015/12/22

Y1 - 2015/12/22

N2 - Background Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and nonwarfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged as safe and effective alternatives to warfarin for stroke prophylaxis in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Objectives This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of warfarin, NOACs, and LAAC with the Watchman device (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) for stroke risk reduction in patients with nonvalvular AF at multiple time points over a lifetime horizon. Methods A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of LAAC, NOACs, and warfarin from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over a lifetime (20-year) horizon. Patients were 70 years of age and at moderate risk for stroke and bleeding. Clinical event rates, stroke outcomes, and quality of life information were drawn predominantly from PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) 4-year data and meta-analyses of warfarin and NOACs. Costs for stroke risk reduction therapies, treatment of associated acute events, and long-term care following disabling stroke were presented in 2015 U.S. dollars. Results Relative to warfarin, LAAC was cost-effective at 7 years ($42,994/quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]), and NOACs were cost-effective at 16 years ($48,446/QALY). LAAC was dominant over NOACs by year 5 and warfarin by year 10. At 10 years, LAAC provided more QALYs than warfarin and NOACs (5.855 vs. 5.601 vs. 5.751, respectively). In sensitivity analyses, LAAC remained cost-effective relative to warfarin ($41,470/QALY at 11 years) and NOACs ($21,964/QALY at 10 years), even if procedure costs were doubled. Conclusions Both NOACs and LAAC with the Watchman device were cost-effective relative to warfarin, but LAAC was also found to be cost-effective and to offer better value relative to NOACs. The results of this analysis should be considered when formulating policy and practice guidelines for stroke prevention in AF.

AB - Background Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and nonwarfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged as safe and effective alternatives to warfarin for stroke prophylaxis in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Objectives This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of warfarin, NOACs, and LAAC with the Watchman device (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) for stroke risk reduction in patients with nonvalvular AF at multiple time points over a lifetime horizon. Methods A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of LAAC, NOACs, and warfarin from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over a lifetime (20-year) horizon. Patients were 70 years of age and at moderate risk for stroke and bleeding. Clinical event rates, stroke outcomes, and quality of life information were drawn predominantly from PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) 4-year data and meta-analyses of warfarin and NOACs. Costs for stroke risk reduction therapies, treatment of associated acute events, and long-term care following disabling stroke were presented in 2015 U.S. dollars. Results Relative to warfarin, LAAC was cost-effective at 7 years ($42,994/quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]), and NOACs were cost-effective at 16 years ($48,446/QALY). LAAC was dominant over NOACs by year 5 and warfarin by year 10. At 10 years, LAAC provided more QALYs than warfarin and NOACs (5.855 vs. 5.601 vs. 5.751, respectively). In sensitivity analyses, LAAC remained cost-effective relative to warfarin ($41,470/QALY at 11 years) and NOACs ($21,964/QALY at 10 years), even if procedure costs were doubled. Conclusions Both NOACs and LAAC with the Watchman device were cost-effective relative to warfarin, but LAAC was also found to be cost-effective and to offer better value relative to NOACs. The results of this analysis should be considered when formulating policy and practice guidelines for stroke prevention in AF.

KW - apixaban

KW - dabigatran

KW - edoxaban

KW - quality of life

KW - rivaroxaban

KW - Watchman

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959440192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959440192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.084

DO - 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.084

M3 - Article

C2 - 26616031

AN - SCOPUS:84959440192

VL - 66

SP - 2728

EP - 2739

JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

SN - 0735-1097

IS - 24

ER -