BMC research notes · 2024
Cost-effectiveness analysis of anticoagulation options for non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Iran.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rezaei Satar, Bavandpour Maryam, Mobinizadeh Mohammadreza, Daroudi Rajabali
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) imposes a substantial economic and clinical burden, particularly in developing countries like Iran. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation options for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in Iran.
METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban for NVAF patients from the Iranian payer's perspective. A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The model incorporated clinical event rates, case-fatality rates, and utility values. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: Among the interventions, warfarin had the lowest cost ($1,755) but apixaban resulted in the highest QALYs (7.33). Apixaban was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $2,026 per QALY gained compared to warfarin. Apixaban dominated other treatments, with lower costs and higher QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that at Iran's willingness-to-pay threshold of $4,387 per QALY gained, apixaban had a high probability of being cost-effective (88.2%).
CONCLUSION: Our study provides strong evidence for healthcare decision-makers in Iran, showing that apixaban is a cost-effective treatment for NVAF, potentially enhancing patient outcomes and optimizing healthcare expenditures.
METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban for NVAF patients from the Iranian payer's perspective. A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The model incorporated clinical event rates, case-fatality rates, and utility values. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: Among the interventions, warfarin had the lowest cost ($1,755) but apixaban resulted in the highest QALYs (7.33). Apixaban was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $2,026 per QALY gained compared to warfarin. Apixaban dominated other treatments, with lower costs and higher QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that at Iran's willingness-to-pay threshold of $4,387 per QALY gained, apixaban had a high probability of being cost-effective (88.2%).
CONCLUSION: Our study provides strong evidence for healthcare decision-makers in Iran, showing that apixaban is a cost-effective treatment for NVAF, potentially enhancing patient outcomes and optimizing healthcare expenditures.