ArticleBioMed research international2015
Cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with edoxaban compared to warfarin in Germany.
Article in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 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 saving analysis of specialized, eHealth-based management of patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy: Results from the thrombEVAL study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
- Edoxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease · 2017Review
- Emerging Tools for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation.EBioMedicine · 2016Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the cost-utility analysis for edoxaban at both doses with that of dabigatran at both doses, rivaroxaban, and apixaban (non vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, NOAC) in a German population. Data of clinical outcome events were taken from edoxaban's ENGAGE-AF, dabigatran's RE-LY, rivaroxaban's ROCKET, and apixaban's ARISTOTLE trials. The base-case analyses of a 65-year-old person with a CHADS2 score >1 gained 0.17 and 0.21 quality-adjusted life years over warfarin for 30 mg od and 60 mg od edoxaban, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 50.000 and 68.000 euro per quality-adjusted life years for the higher and lower dose of edoxaban (Monte Carlo simulation). These findings were also similar to those for apixaban and more cost-effective than the other NOAC regimens. The current market costs for direct oral anticoagulants are high in relation to the quality of life gained from a German public health care insurance perspective. The willingness-to-pay threshold was lowest for 60 mg edoxaban compared to all direct oral anticoagulants and for 30 mg edoxaban compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban.
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.