ArticleHerz2020
Anticoagulant plus antiplatelet therapy for atrial fibrillation : Cost-utility of combination therapy with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants vs. warfarin.
Article in Herz, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Net clinical benefit of DOACs vs. usual anticoagulation treatment in venous thromboembolism and active cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2023Pooled it
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 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmerging evidence indicates combination therapy with anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for atrial fibrillation (AF) will be increasingly required. Numerous studies compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation alone in AF, i. e., non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs. warfarin. However, the addition of antiplatelet agents with their potential for decreasing thromboembolic stroke counter-balanced by an increased bleeding risk has received less attention. Thus, we evaluated the cost-utility of this combination therapy. METHOD AND
resultsWe obtained event estimates from our recent meta-analysis of four randomized clinical trials designed to compare NOACs with warfarin in patients with AF. We examined patient subgroups within each trial that received antiplatelet therapy in addition to anticoagulation. Utilities were derived from the literature and cost estimates from the German health-care system. A decision tree was constructed and populated with these parameters. We used a 1-year time horizon because combination therapy is not recommended beyond this time. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The derived ICER was 13,168.50 € per QALY. NOAC prices exerted considerable influence on the calculation. Nevertheless, there is potential for ICER shifts in favor of warfarin, e.g., if warfarin-mediated anticoagulation control is improved and thereby adverse events decrease. Conversely, if NOAC adherence decreases, adverse events could increase.
conclusionThe derived ICER was 13,168.50 € per QALY, consistent with NOACs being cost-effective vs. warfarin when anticoagulation is used with antiplatelet agents. Nevertheless, country-, practice-, and patient-related factors influence the ICER. Our cost-utility calculation should be used a starting point for decision-making.
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.