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

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). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of warfarin, NOACs, and LAAC with t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2015-12, Vol.66 (24), p.2728-2739
Hauptverfasser: Reddy, Vivek Y, Akehurst, Ronald L, Armstrong, Shannon O, Amorosi, Stacey L, Beard, Stephen M, Holmes, Jr, David R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2739
container_issue 24
container_start_page 2728
container_title Journal of the American College of Cardiology
container_volume 66
creator Reddy, Vivek Y
Akehurst, Ronald L
Armstrong, Shannon O
Amorosi, Stacey L
Beard, Stephen M
Holmes, Jr, David R
description 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). 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. 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. 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. 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.084
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1751990353</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1751990353</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p211t-d50c59747abd1a3037098a6a308ae5823f4c7be98fec7f212b0043d719cb15d03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kE1Pg0AQhjcmxtbqH_Bg9ugFnGFZYL0R0qpJYxOteiQLDA0VWGRB478XY3uaeT8yeTKMXSG4CBjc7t29znPXA5QuKBci_4TNUcrIEVKFM3Zu7R4AggjVGZt5QYABCJyzbls1xAfDE2MHZ1mWlA_VF7VkLV-ZujbfVbvjL0NvPog_UzFOsWn_DD3QriLLq5bHqzv-rvtS95N4o96Olj9t4sQexTqOeVIbO_Z0wU5LXVu6PMwFe10tt8mDs97cPybx2uk8xMEpJOQTuB_qrEAtQISgIh1MW6RJRp4o_TzMSEUTcFh66GUAvihCVHmGsgCxYDf_d7vefI5kh7SpbE51rVsyo00xlKgUCCmm6vWhOmYNFWnXV43uf9Ljl8QvPq5oQg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1751990353</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Time to Cost-Effectiveness Following Stroke Reduction Strategies in AF: Warfarin Versus NOACs Versus LAA Closure</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Reddy, Vivek Y ; Akehurst, Ronald L ; Armstrong, Shannon O ; Amorosi, Stacey L ; Beard, Stephen M ; Holmes, Jr, David R</creator><creatorcontrib>Reddy, Vivek Y ; Akehurst, Ronald L ; Armstrong, Shannon O ; Amorosi, Stacey L ; Beard, Stephen M ; Holmes, Jr, David R</creatorcontrib><description>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). 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. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of LAAC, NOACs, and warfarin from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare &amp; 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. 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. 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.</description><identifier>EISSN: 1558-3597</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.084</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26616031</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Anticoagulants - therapeutic use ; Atrial Appendage ; Atrial Fibrillation - complications ; Atrial Fibrillation - therapy ; Cardiac Surgical Procedures - economics ; Cardiac Surgical Procedures - methods ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Follow-Up Studies ; Forecasting ; Health Care Costs ; Massachusetts ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Stroke - etiology ; Stroke - prevention &amp; control ; Time Factors ; Warfarin - therapeutic use</subject><ispartof>Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2015-12, Vol.66 (24), p.2728-2739</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26616031$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Reddy, Vivek Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akehurst, Ronald L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Armstrong, Shannon O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amorosi, Stacey L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beard, Stephen M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holmes, Jr, David R</creatorcontrib><title>Time to Cost-Effectiveness Following Stroke Reduction Strategies in AF: Warfarin Versus NOACs Versus LAA Closure</title><title>Journal of the American College of Cardiology</title><addtitle>J Am Coll Cardiol</addtitle><description>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). 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. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of LAAC, NOACs, and warfarin from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare &amp; 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. 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. 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.</description><subject>Anticoagulants - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Atrial Appendage</subject><subject>Atrial Fibrillation - complications</subject><subject>Atrial Fibrillation - therapy</subject><subject>Cardiac Surgical Procedures - economics</subject><subject>Cardiac Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Forecasting</subject><subject>Health Care Costs</subject><subject>Massachusetts</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Stroke - etiology</subject><subject>Stroke - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Warfarin - therapeutic use</subject><issn>1558-3597</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo1kE1Pg0AQhjcmxtbqH_Bg9ugFnGFZYL0R0qpJYxOteiQLDA0VWGRB478XY3uaeT8yeTKMXSG4CBjc7t29znPXA5QuKBci_4TNUcrIEVKFM3Zu7R4AggjVGZt5QYABCJyzbls1xAfDE2MHZ1mWlA_VF7VkLV-ZujbfVbvjL0NvPog_UzFOsWn_DD3QriLLq5bHqzv-rvtS95N4o96Olj9t4sQexTqOeVIbO_Z0wU5LXVu6PMwFe10tt8mDs97cPybx2uk8xMEpJOQTuB_qrEAtQISgIh1MW6RJRp4o_TzMSEUTcFh66GUAvihCVHmGsgCxYDf_d7vefI5kh7SpbE51rVsyo00xlKgUCCmm6vWhOmYNFWnXV43uf9Ljl8QvPq5oQg</recordid><startdate>20151222</startdate><enddate>20151222</enddate><creator>Reddy, Vivek Y</creator><creator>Akehurst, Ronald L</creator><creator>Armstrong, Shannon O</creator><creator>Amorosi, Stacey L</creator><creator>Beard, Stephen M</creator><creator>Holmes, Jr, David R</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151222</creationdate><title>Time to Cost-Effectiveness Following Stroke Reduction Strategies in AF: Warfarin Versus NOACs Versus LAA Closure</title><author>Reddy, Vivek Y ; Akehurst, Ronald L ; Armstrong, Shannon O ; Amorosi, Stacey L ; Beard, Stephen M ; Holmes, Jr, David R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p211t-d50c59747abd1a3037098a6a308ae5823f4c7be98fec7f212b0043d719cb15d03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Anticoagulants - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Atrial Appendage</topic><topic>Atrial Fibrillation - complications</topic><topic>Atrial Fibrillation - therapy</topic><topic>Cardiac Surgical Procedures - economics</topic><topic>Cardiac Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Forecasting</topic><topic>Health Care Costs</topic><topic>Massachusetts</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Stroke - etiology</topic><topic>Stroke - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Warfarin - therapeutic use</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Reddy, Vivek Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akehurst, Ronald L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Armstrong, Shannon O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amorosi, Stacey L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beard, Stephen M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holmes, Jr, David R</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of the American College of Cardiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Reddy, Vivek Y</au><au>Akehurst, Ronald L</au><au>Armstrong, Shannon O</au><au>Amorosi, Stacey L</au><au>Beard, Stephen M</au><au>Holmes, Jr, David R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Time to Cost-Effectiveness Following Stroke Reduction Strategies in AF: Warfarin Versus NOACs Versus LAA Closure</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the American College of Cardiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Am Coll Cardiol</addtitle><date>2015-12-22</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>66</volume><issue>24</issue><spage>2728</spage><epage>2739</epage><pages>2728-2739</pages><eissn>1558-3597</eissn><abstract>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). 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. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of LAAC, NOACs, and warfarin from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare &amp; 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. 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. 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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>26616031</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.084</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 1558-3597
ispartof Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2015-12, Vol.66 (24), p.2728-2739
issn 1558-3597
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1751990353
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Anticoagulants - therapeutic use
Atrial Appendage
Atrial Fibrillation - complications
Atrial Fibrillation - therapy
Cardiac Surgical Procedures - economics
Cardiac Surgical Procedures - methods
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Follow-Up Studies
Forecasting
Health Care Costs
Massachusetts
Practice Guidelines as Topic
Stroke - etiology
Stroke - prevention & control
Time Factors
Warfarin - therapeutic use
title Time to Cost-Effectiveness Following Stroke Reduction Strategies in AF: Warfarin Versus NOACs Versus LAA Closure
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T13%3A33%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Time%20to%20Cost-Effectiveness%20Following%20Stroke%20Reduction%20Strategies%20in%20AF:%20Warfarin%20Versus%20NOACs%20Versus%20LAA%20Closure&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20American%20College%20of%20Cardiology&rft.au=Reddy,%20Vivek%20Y&rft.date=2015-12-22&rft.volume=66&rft.issue=24&rft.spage=2728&rft.epage=2739&rft.pages=2728-2739&rft.eissn=1558-3597&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.084&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1751990353%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1751990353&rft_id=info:pmid/26616031&rfr_iscdi=true