ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2015
Edoxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors influencing the cost-effectiveness of novel oral anticoagulants compared to vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Methods for Economic Evaluations of Novel Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Apixaban versus Other Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in the Prevention of Thromboembolic Complications Among Finnish Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2021Article
- Edoxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease · 2017Review
- Edoxaban in Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism-Ten Key Questions and Answers: A Practical Guide.Advances in therapy · 2017Review
- Managing patients taking edoxaban in dentistry.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2017Review
- Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2016Article
- Cost effectiveness of novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation depending on the quality of warfarin anticoagulation control.PharmacoEconomics · 2015Article
- New oral anticoagulants: their advantages and disadvantages compared with vitamin K antagonists in the prevention and treatment of patients with thromboembolic events.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Edoxaban, an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor, has been found non-inferior to warfarin for preventing stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), with a lower rate of intracranial bleeding. The aim of our investigation was to assess the cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus warfarin from the perspective of the Italian health-care system. A Markov decision model was used to evaluate lifetime cost and quality-adjusted life expectancy of NVAF patients treated with warfarin or edoxaban. Transition probabilities were obtained from the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, cost estimates were based on Italian prices and tariffs, utilities were obtained from the literature. One-way and second-order sensitivity analyses were performed. In the base case, lifetime costs were €18,658 for edoxaban and €14,060 for warfarin. Discounted quality-adjusted survival was 9.022 years for edoxaban and 8.425 years for warfarin, leading to an incremental cost-utility ratio of €7,713 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Results were sensitive to time horizon, time in therapeutic range of warfarin and to the relative impact of warfarin versus edoxaban therapy onto quality of life. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed edoxaban to be cost-effective versus warfarin in 92.3 % of the simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000 per QALY. In conclusion, edoxaban proved to be a cost-effective alternative to warfarin in patients with moderate-to-high-risk NVAF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.