Cost-effectiveness of dronedarone and standard of care compared with standard of care alone: US results of an ATHENA lifetime model

摘要

Background: The first antiarrhythmic drug to demonstrate a reduced rate of cardiovascular hospitalization in atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL) patients was dronedarone in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel arm Trial to assess the efficacy of dronedarone 400 mg bid for the prevention of cardiovascular Hospitalization or death from any cause in patiENts with Atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (ATHENA trial). The potential cost-effectiveness of dronedarone in this patient population has not been reported in a US context. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of dronedarone from a US health care payers’ perspective. Methods and results: ATHENA patient data were applied to a patient-level health state transition model. Probabilities of health state transitions were derived from ATHENA and published data. Associated costs used in the model (2010 values) were obtained from published sources when trial data were not available. The base-case model assumed that patients were treated with dronedarone for the duration of ATHENA (mean 21 months) and were followed over a lifetime. Cost-effectiveness, from the payers' perspective, was determined using a Monte Carlo microsimulation (1 million fictitious patients). Dronedarone plus standard care provided 0.13 life years gained (LYG), and 0.11 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), over standard care alone; cost/QALY was $19,520 and cost/LYG was $16,930. Compared to lower risk patients, patients at higher risk of stroke (Congestive heart failure, history of Hypertension, Age ≥ 75 years, Diabetes mellitus, and past history of Stroke or transient ischemic attack (CHADS₂) scores 3–6 versus 0) had a lower cost/QALY ($9580–$16,000 versus $26,450). Cost/QALY was highest in scenarios assuming lifetime dronedarone therapy, no cardiovascular mortality benefit, no cost associated with AF/AFL recurrence on standard care, and when discounting of 5% was compared with 0%. Conclusions: By extrapolating the results of a large, multicenter, randomized clinical trial (ATHENA), this model suggests that dronedarone is a cost-effective treatment option for approved indications (paroxysmal/persistent AF/AFL) in the US.