Summary
Canadian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in whom anticoagulation is appropriate
have two new choices for anticoagulation for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism
– dabigatran etexilate (dabigatran) and rivaroxaban. Based on the RE-LY and ROCKET
AF trial results, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran (twice daily
dosing of 150 mg or 110 mg based on patient age) versus rivaroxaban from a Canadian
payer perspective. A formal indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of dabigatran versus
rivaroxaban was performed, using dabigatran clinical event rates from RE-LY for the
safety-on-treatment population, adjusted to the ROCKET AF population. A previously
described Markov model was modified to simulate anticoagulation treatment using ITC
results as inputs. Model outputs included total costs, event rates, and quality-adjusted
life-years (QALYs). The ITC found when compared to rivaroxaban, dabigatran had a lower
risk of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) (relative risk [RR] = 0.38; 95% confidence
interval [CI] 0.21 –0.67) and stroke (RR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.45–0.87). Over a lifetime
horizon, the model found dabigatran-treated patients experienced fewer ICHs (0.33
dabigatran vs. 0.71 rivaroxaban) and ischaemic strokes (3.40 vs. 3.96) per 100 patient-years,
and accrued more QALYs (6.17 vs. 6.01). Dabigatran-treated patients had lower acute
care and long-term follow-up costs per patient ($52,314 vs. $53,638) which more than
offset differences in drug costs ($7,299 vs. $6,128). In probabilistic analysis, dabigatran
had high probability of being the most cost-effective therapy at common thresholds
of willingness-to-pay (93% at a $20,000/QALY threshold). This study found dabigatran
is economically dominant versus rivaroxaban for prevention of stroke and systemic
embolism among Canadian AF patients.
Keywords
Anticoagulation - atrial fibrillation - cost-effectiveness - dabigatran - rivaroxaban
- RE-LY - ROCKET AF