ArticleKorean circulation journal2019
Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Compared to Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Exploring trends of cost-effectiveness thresholds in South Korea: systematic review of pharmacoeconomic evaluations since introduction of the positive list system.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Review
- Cost Differences Between Oral Anticoagulation Therapies in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in Finland.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of rhythm control strategy: Ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs for treating atrial fibrillation in Korea based on real-world data.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Direct Medical Cost of Stroke and the Cost-Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation-Related Stroke: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulant vs. Warfarin Among Atrial Fibrillation Patients With Intermediate Stroke Risk.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of New Oral Anticoagulants for the Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2022Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation in China.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulant for Secondary Prevention in Asians with Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Rate- and Rhythm-Control Drugs for Treating Atrial Fibrillation in Korea.Yonsei medical journal · 2019Article
- Benefit, Risk and Cost in Oral Anticoagulation for Stroke Prevention: Is It the Third Factor?Korean circulation journal · 2019Article
- Using non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in specific patient populations: a study of Korean cases.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesRivaroxaban is noninferior to warfarin for preventing stroke or systemic embolism in patients with high-risk atrial fibrillation (AF) and is associated with a lower rate of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared to adjusted-dose warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF.
methodsWe built a Markov model using the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. The base-case analysis assumed a cohort of patients with prevalent AF who were aged 18 years or older without contraindications to anticoagulation.
resultsNumber of patients with CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores 0, 1 and ≥2 were 56 (0.2%), 1,944 (6.3%) and 28,650 (93.5%), respectively. In patients with CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores ≥2, the incidence rate of ischemic stroke was 3.11% and 3.76% in warfarin and rivaroxaban groups, respectively. The incidence rates of ICH were 0.42% and 0.15%, and those of gastrointestinal bleeding were 0.32% and 0.15% in warfarin and rivaroxaban, respectively. Patients with AF treated with rivaroxaban lived an average of 11.8 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a lifetime treatment cost of $20,886. Those receiving warfarin lived an average of 11.4 QALYs and incurred costs of $17,151. Patients with rivaroxaban gained an additional 0.4 QALYs over a lifetime with an additional cost of $3,735, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9,707 per QALY.
conclusionsPatients who had been treated with rivaroxaban may be a cost-effective alternative to warfarin for stroke prevention in Korean patients with AF.
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.