Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Health Care Costs and Utilization of Dabigatran Compared With Warfarin for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

View through CrossRef
Background: It remains unclear whether the use of new oral anticoagulants, compared with warfarin, is economically beneficial in Asian countries. Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the health care costs and utilization between dabigatran and warfarin in a real-world nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) population. Research Design: Data were obtained from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database, and patients with an NVAF diagnosis between June 1, 2012, and May 31, 2014, were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code of 427.31. The patients in the dabigatran cohort were matched 1:2 to those in the warfarin cohort by sex, age, residential region, and a propensity score that incorporated a major bleeding history, CHADS2 score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. The all-cause health care utilization and associated costs of the 2 treatment groups were compared at 3 and 12 months. Results: A total of 1149 patients taking dabigatran were identified and matched with 2298 warfarin users. During the 3-month observation period, the likelihood of having at least 1 hospitalization among dabigatran users was significantly lower than that of warfarin users (odds ratio=0.78; P=0.001). Patients in the dabigatran group incurred lower mean emergency department costs ($2383.1 vs. $3033.6), mean ischemic stroke–related hospitalization costs ($8869.5 vs. $13,990.5), and mean all-cause hospitalization costs ($32,402.2 vs. $50,669.9) at 3 months. However, both the mean and median outpatient costs of warfarin users were consistently lower than those of dabigatran users ($17,161.2 vs. $24,931.4 and $10,509.0 vs. $20,671.5, respectively). Similar trends were observed at 12 months, except that the 2 groups had comparable total health care costs. Conclusions: The use of dabigatran is associated with lower emergency department and all-cause hospitalization costs but greater outpatient costs in a real-world, NVAF patient population compared with warfarin.
Title: Health Care Costs and Utilization of Dabigatran Compared With Warfarin for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation
Description:
Background: It remains unclear whether the use of new oral anticoagulants, compared with warfarin, is economically beneficial in Asian countries.
Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the health care costs and utilization between dabigatran and warfarin in a real-world nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) population.
Research Design: Data were obtained from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database, and patients with an NVAF diagnosis between June 1, 2012, and May 31, 2014, were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code of 427.
31.
The patients in the dabigatran cohort were matched 1:2 to those in the warfarin cohort by sex, age, residential region, and a propensity score that incorporated a major bleeding history, CHADS2 score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index.
The all-cause health care utilization and associated costs of the 2 treatment groups were compared at 3 and 12 months.
Results: A total of 1149 patients taking dabigatran were identified and matched with 2298 warfarin users.
During the 3-month observation period, the likelihood of having at least 1 hospitalization among dabigatran users was significantly lower than that of warfarin users (odds ratio=0.
78; P=0.
001).
Patients in the dabigatran group incurred lower mean emergency department costs ($2383.
1 vs.
$3033.
6), mean ischemic stroke–related hospitalization costs ($8869.
5 vs.
$13,990.
5), and mean all-cause hospitalization costs ($32,402.
2 vs.
$50,669.
9) at 3 months.
However, both the mean and median outpatient costs of warfarin users were consistently lower than those of dabigatran users ($17,161.
2 vs.
$24,931.
4 and $10,509.
0 vs.
$20,671.
5, respectively).
Similar trends were observed at 12 months, except that the 2 groups had comparable total health care costs.
Conclusions: The use of dabigatran is associated with lower emergency department and all-cause hospitalization costs but greater outpatient costs in a real-world, NVAF patient population compared with warfarin.

Related Results

Rethinking Anticoagulation in Kidney Disease and Kidney Transplantation
Rethinking Anticoagulation in Kidney Disease and Kidney Transplantation
BackgroundA clinical dilemma exists in patients with CKD, ESKD, and after kidney transplantation, as they face concurrent risks of both thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications...
Dabigatran Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics during Renal Replacement Therapy
Dabigatran Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics during Renal Replacement Therapy
Abstract Introduction: Dabigatran is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor approved for use in prevention and treatment of thromboembolism. There is currently no reliabl...
Dabigatran
Dabigatran
Background: Dabigatran is the first oral direct thrombin inhibitor which is endorsed by Food and Drug Administration in the prevention of embolic events in pati...
A systematic review and meta‐analysis of dabigatran peak and trough concentration in adults
A systematic review and meta‐analysis of dabigatran peak and trough concentration in adults
Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor used in preventing thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and several other conditions. Routine dabigatran c...
Iranian stroke model-how to involve health policymakers
Iranian stroke model-how to involve health policymakers
Stroke in Iran, with more than 83 million population, is a leading cause of disability and mortality in adults. Stroke has higher incidence in Iran comparing the global situation a...

Back to Top