Photo courtesy of the CDC
The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued a draft guidance recommending the oral anticoagulant edoxaban tosylate (Lixiana) as an option for preventing stroke and systemic embolism in adults with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).
The patients must have 1 or more risk factors for stroke, including congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, and age of 75 years or older.
Such patients are generally treated with warfarin or the newer oral anticoagulants dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.
NICE said it wants to add edoxaban to that list because the drug is a clinically and cost-effective treatment option for these patients.
NICE’s draft guidance says the decision about whether to start treatment with edoxaban should be made after an informed discussion between the clinician and the patient about the risks and benefits of edoxaban compared with warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban.
For patients considering switching from warfarin, edoxaban’s potential benefits should be weighed against its potential risks, taking into account the patient’s level of international normalized ratio control.
Clinical effectiveness
NICE’s conclusion that edoxaban is clinically effective was based primarily on results of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial. In this trial, researchers compared edoxaban and warfarin as prophylaxis for stroke or systemic embolism in patients with NVAF.
Results suggested edoxaban was at least non-inferior to warfarin with regard to efficacy, and edoxaban was associated with a significantly lower rate of major and fatal bleeding.
A committee advising NICE also reviewed a meta-analysis prepared by Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., the company developing edoxaban.
The goal of the meta-analysis was to compare edoxaban with rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran. The analysis included 4 trials: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48, ARISTOTLE (apixaban), RE-LY (dabigatran), and ROCKET-AF (rivaroxaban). All 4 trials had a warfarin comparator arm.
The results of the meta-analysis indicated that, for the composite endpoint of stroke and systemic embolism, efficacy was similar for high-dose edoxaban and the other newer oral anticoagulants.
However, edoxaban significantly reduced major bleeding risk by 24% compared to rivaroxaban, 28% compared to dabigatran at 150 mg, and 17% compared to dabigatran at 110 mg. Major bleeding rates were similar for high-dose edoxaban and apixaban.
The committee advising NICE said these results should be interpreted with caution, but edoxaban is unlikely to be different from rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in clinical practice.
Cost-effectiveness
Edoxaban costs £58.80 for a 28-tablet pack (60 mg or 30 mg), and the daily cost of treatment is £2.10 (excluding value-added tax). However, costs may vary in different settings because of negotiated procurement discounts.
The committee advising NICE analyzed cost information and concluded that edoxaban is cost-effective compared with warfarin, but there is insufficient evidence to distinguish between the clinical and cost-effectiveness of edoxaban and the newer oral anticoagulants.
Nevertheless, the committee recommended edoxaban as a cost-effective treatment for patients with NVAF who have 1 or more risk factors for stroke.
NICE’s draft guidance is now with consultees, who have the opportunity to appeal against it. Once NICE issues its final guidance on a technology, it replaces local recommendations.
