ArticleBMC health services research2021
Cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation in China.
Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 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
- Cost Differences Between Oral Anticoagulation Therapies in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in Finland.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2025Article
- Cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients in Saudi Arabia: A Single-Center retrospective cohort study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023Article
- Adherence to Atrial Fibrillation Better Care (ABC) Pathway Management of Chinese Community Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban in Chinese Patients With Stable Cardiovascular Disease.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulant vs. Warfarin Among Atrial Fibrillation Patients With Intermediate Stroke Risk.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Patent foramen ovale closure vs. medical therapy alone after cryptogenic stroke in China: A cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Patient-specific and healthcare real-world costs of atrial fibrillation in individuals treated with direct oral anticoagulant agents or warfarin.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Antithrombotic Therapy With Ticagrelor in Atrial Fibrillation Subjects After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new anticoagulants and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).
methodsThe Markov model was constructed to compare patients' quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using drug cost, the cost of the examination after taking a drug, and the incremental cost of other treatments. Both dabigatran (110 and 150 mg, twice a day) and rivaroxaban (20 mg, once a day) were compared with warfarin (3-6 mg, once a day). Willingness to pay, three times the 2018 China GDP per capita (9481.88 $), was the cost-effect threshold in our study.
resultsThe total cost were was 5317.31$, 29673.33$, 23615.49$, and 34324.91$ for warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran 110 mg bid, and dabigatran 150 mg bid, respectively. The QALYs for each of the four interventions were 11.07 years, 15.46 years, 12.4 years, and 15 years, respectively. The cost-effectiveness analysis of the three new oral anticoagulants and warfarin showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 5548.07$/QALY when rivaroxaban was compared with warfarin. Rivaroxaban was the most cost-effective choice and warfarin was the least.
conclusionsIn Chinese patients with AF, although warfarin is cheaper, rivaroxaban has a better cost-effectiveness advantage from an economic point of view.
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.