{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.039634146341463415, 'fraction_numerical': 0.023519163763066203, 'mean_word_length': 5.092838196286472, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is dabigatran considered a cost-effective alternative to warfarin treatment: a review of current economic evaluations worldwide

Abstract Objective: Dabigatran was the first of a new generation of anticoagulation drugs for the indication of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) to be approved. Evidence show that dabigatran 150 mg twice daily significantly reduces the risk of stroke and systemic embolism (RR = 0.65; p < 0.001) and shows a comparable rate of major bleedings (RR = 0.93; p = 0.32), whereas dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was associated with a comparable rate of stroke and systemic embolism (RR = 0.90; p = 0.30) and a significantly lower rate of major bleedings compared to warfarin treatment (RR = 0.80; p = 0.003). The purpose is to review current economic evaluations of these alternatives for healthcare professionals to include these findings in their decision-making. Methods: A systematic literature search identified 43 economic evaluations, of which 10 were included and evaluated according to the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC-list) and the Oxford model. Results: Six economic evaluations concluded that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to warfarin. One evaluation concluded the same except when quality in warfarin treatment was excellent, with a mean time in therapeutic range (TTR) > 73%. Three evaluations concluded that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to warfarin in patient sub-groups; TTR ≤ 64%, congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (CHADS2 score) ≥3, or a CHADS2 score = 2 unless international normalized ratio (INR) control was excellent, and with high risk of stroke or in a low-quality warfarin treatment. Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was in general dominated by dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. Limitations: The evaluations were not fully homogeneous, as some did not include loss of productivity, costs of dyspepsia, and annual costs of dabigatran patient management. Conclusions: In the majority of the economic evaluations, dabigatran is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin treatment. In some evaluations dabigatran is only cost-effective in sub-groups, such as patients with a low TTR-value in warfarin treatment and a CHADS2 score ≥2.