ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Cost-effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulant vs. Warfarin Among Atrial Fibrillation Patients With Intermediate Stroke Risk.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. 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, 14 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 Effectiveness of Strategies to Manage Atrial Fibrillation in Middle- and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled 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
- Evolving anticoagulation paradigms in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients: a focus on direct oral anticoagulants.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Anticoagulation Strategies for Left Ventricular Thrombus After Myocardial Infarction: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Observational
- Clinical and Economic Consequences of a First Major Bleeding Event in Patients Treated with Direct Factor Xa Inhibitors in Spain: A Long-Term Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several studies have shown the cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), compared with warfarin, to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) related complications. However, few have reported cost-effectiveness of DOACs in AF patients with intermediate stroke risk. Thus, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of DOACs vs. warfarin in non-valvular AF patients with intermediate stroke risk using national representative data. Methods: We identified 7,954 newly diagnosed non-valvular AF patients (≥18 years) with intermediate stroke risk (CHA Results: The total cost of warfarin, rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban was $2,874, $5,761, $5,151, $5,761 and $5,851, respectively. The QALYs gained were 10.83, 10.95, 11.10, 10.49 and 10.99 years, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban was $29,743.99, $8,426.71, -$8,483.04 and $18,483.55, respectively. The WTP was set at $32,000. DOACs (except dabigatran) were more cost-effective compared with warfarin because they did not exceed the WTP in the base-case analysis. Conclusion: Our findings showed that DOACs were more cost-effective than warfarin in non-valvular AF patients with intermediate stroke risk.
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.