Abstract

Objectives

Dabigatran has a better safety profile and requires less monitoring, but is costlier than warfarin. This study evaluated the cost-utility of dabigatran relative to warfarin for preventing stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in India.

Methods

A Markov decision analysis model was developed to compare dabigatran (110 or 150 mg twice a day) to warfarin titrated to target prothrombin time in patients with NVAF at high risk of stroke. Model utilities and transition probabilities were based on literature and costs on market prices. Data on out-of-pocket expenses and income lost were taken from a nationally representative survey. We adopted a societal perspective and discounted both costs and outcomes at 3%. Ischemic stroke, intracranial bleed, other major bleeds, and death were outcomes of NVAF. The model projected the costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each intervention over a lifetime. We used gross domestic product per capita of India (US dollars [US$]1889) as the cost-effectiveness threshold. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results

Treatment with either dose of dabigatran was associated with gain in life-years and QALYs compared with warfarin. The discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios/QALYs for both doses of dabigatran (110 mg US$7519; 150 mg US$6634) were above the cost-effectiveness threshold, and the probability of being cost-effective at this threshold was low. Cost of dabigatran was an important factor in determining incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Price reduction of 150 mg dose by 49% will make it cost-effective.

Conclusions

Dabigatran is not cost-effective in the Indian societal context. Reducing the price of dabigatran 150 mg by half will make it cost-effective.