SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Factors influencing the cost-effectiveness of novel oral anticoagulants compared to vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nontherapeutic INR After Hospital Discharge: A Repeated-Measures Analysis of Warfarin-Treated Patients and Potential Drug-Drug Interactions.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common clinical arrhythmia, primarily associated with the risk of stroke and various thromboembolic events, imposing significant clinical and economic burdens on patients and societies. This study aimed to review the relevant pharmacoeconomic evaluations of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with AF and explore the influencing factors and general trends of economic evaluations. Methods: This review qualitatively analyzed the basic characteristics, model structure, and basic results of all included studies. Moreover, a cross-sectional and longitudinal comparative analysis of costs, health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness results of studies in the United States, China, and the United Kingdom was conducted. Additionally, this study employed multivariate binary logistic regression to explore the influencing factors and general trends of the cost-effectiveness between NOACs and VKAs across all included studies. Results: A total of 103 studies were included, comprising 218 comparisons between NOACs and VKAs. Total costs and health outcomes measured in studies with different countries and baseline characteristics exhibited considerable variations. However, NOACs generally had higher total costs than VKAs and resulted in more health outcomes for patients. The binary logistic regression analysis revealed that the country's economic development level, study perspective, and cycle length significantly influenced cost-effectiveness results. Conclusion: In high-income countries, NOACs are generally considered cost-effective, while VKAs may remain an attractive strategy in middle- and low-income countries. Additionally, factors such as drug prices, patient baseline characteristics, and model settings could impact the costs, health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness results of studies. Conducting relevant pharmacoeconomic research based on specific populations and study contexts is essential.
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.