A China-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Novel Oral Anticoagulants versus Warfarin in Patients with Left Ventricular Thrombosis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/rmhp.s454463
2024-04-13
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
Abstract:Shuo Tian, 1, 2, &ast Haitao Zhong, 3, 4, &ast Mengyue Yin, 5 Pei Jiang, 3 Qiao Liu 1 1 Department of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, People's Republic of China; 2 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Jining First People's Hospital, Shandong First Medical University, Jining, Shandong, People's Republic of China; 3 Translational Pharmaceutical Laboratory, Jining First People's Hospital, Shandong First Medical University, Jining, Shandong, People's Republic of China; 4 Institute of Translational Pharmacy, Jining Medical Research Academy, Jining, Shandong, People's Republic of China; 5 The Affiliated Taian City Central Hospital of Qingdao University, Taian, Shandong, People's Republic of China &astThese authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Qiao Liu, Department of Pharmacy, The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, People's Republic of China, Email Purpose: This study aims to conduct a comprehensive cost-effectiveness comparison between novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in Chinese patients with left ventricular thrombosis (LVT). By incorporating the impact of volume-based procurement (VBP) policy for pharmaceuticals in China, this analysis intends to provide crucial insights for informed healthcare decision-making. Patients and Methods: A Markov model was employed to simulate the disease progression of LVT over a 54-week time horizon, using weekly cycles and six mutually exclusive health states. The model incorporated transition probabilities between health states calculated based on clinical trial data and literature sources. Various cost and utility parameters were also included. Additionally, a series of sensitivity analyses were conducted to address parameter variations and associated uncertainties. Results: The study finding suggest that from the perspective of Chinese healthcare, the majority of brand-name drug (BND) NOACs generally lack cost-effectiveness when compared to warfarin. However, when considered the VBP policy, NOACs, particularly rivaroxaban, prove to be more cost-effective than warfarin. Rivaroxaban provided an additional 0.0304 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient and reduced overall medical costs by 9095.73 CNY, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of − 298,786.20 CNY/QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicated a 78.4% probability of any NOACs being more cost-effective compared to warfarin. However, specifically considering NOACs under the VBP policy, the likelihood of them being more cost-effective approached 90%. Conclusion: Taking into account Chinese pharmaceutical procurement policies, the findings highlight the superior efficacy of NOACs, especially rivaroxaban, in enhancing both the quality of life and economic benefits for Chinese LVT patients. NOACs present a more cost-effective treatment option, improving patient quality of life and healthcare cost efficiency compared to warfarin. Keywords: cost-effectiveness, novel oral anticoagulants, left ventricular thrombosis, thrombus resolution Left ventricular thrombosis (LVT) presents a significant challenge in cardiovascular disease management due to its complicated clinical presentation and treatment requirements. 1 Patients with LVT face a 10–22% risk of thromboembolic events within the first three months. 2,3 Current guidelines for myocardial infarction or stroke management recommend the use of anticoagulants in patients with LVT to mitigate the risk of stroke or systemic embolic events. 2,4 Historically, warfarin has served as the mainstay in anticoagulation therapy for LVT, providing a standard but not necessarily the most optimal solution. Recently, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged as a practical alternative to warfarin, 5 primarily due to their convenience and the absence of a requirement for frequent laboratory monitoring. Although NOACs were originally developed and widely acclaimed for their effectiveness in atrial fibrillation (AF) anticoagulation therapy, 6,7 they have also demonstrated potential in the treatment of LVT. In comparison to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), NOACs have demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and safety in managing LVT, as evidenced by several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses. 8–10 This evolving landscape is evident in the latest American Heart Association scientific statement (2022), which suggests NOACs as a viable alternative to warfarin, despite the limited s -Abstract Truncated-
health care sciences & services,health policy & services