Quantifying Preferences in Drug Benefit-Risk Decisions

Benefit-risk assessment is used in various phases along the drug lifecycle, such as marketing authorization and surveillance, health technology assessment (HTA), and clinical decisions, to understand whether, and for which patients, a drug has a favorable or more valuable profile with reference to one or more comparators. Such assessments are inherently preference-based as several clinical and nonclinical outcomes of varying importance might act as evaluation criteria, and decision makers must establish acceptable trade-offs between these outcomes. Different healthcare stakeholder perspectives, such as those from patients and healthcare professionals, are key for informing benefit-risk trade-offs. However, the degree to which such preferences inform the decision is often unclear as formal preference-based evaluation frameworks are generally not used for regulatory decisions, and, if used, rarely communicated in HTA decisions. We argue that for better decisions, as well as for reasons of transparency, preferences in benefit-risk decisions should more often be quantified and communicated explicitly.

Changes in oral anticoagulation for elective cardioversion: results from a European cardioversion registry

Aims

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) pharmacological or electrical cardioversion may be performed to restore sinus rhythm. The procedure is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events, which can be significantly reduced by adequate anticoagulation (OAC). Our aim was to create a partly prospective, partly retrospective cardioversion registry, particularly focusing on OAC strategies in different European countries, and on emerging choice of OAC over time.

Methods

From September 2014 to October 2015, cardioversions due to AF performed in six European city hospitals in five European countries (Hungary: Budapest-1 and -2; Italy: Bari and Pisa; France: Amiens; Spain: Madrid; and Lithuania: Kaunas) were recorded in the registry.

Results

A total of 1101 patients (retrospective/prospective: 679/422, male/female: 742/359, mean age: 67.3 years ± 11.2) were registered. Most of the cardioversions were electrical (97%). Oral anticoagulants were administered in 87% of the patient, the usage of non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) was 31.5% vs 68.5%, respectively. Seventy seven percent of the patients were given oral anticoagulants more than 3 weeks prior to the procedure, and 86% more than 4 weeks after the procedure. When using VKA, international normalized ratio (INR) at cardioversion was above 2.0 in 76% of the cases. A decline in VKA usage (P = 0.033) in elective cardioversion over approximately 1 year was observed. During the observation period, there was an increase in apixaban (P < 0.001), a slight increase in rivaroxaban (P = 0.028) and no changes in dabigatran (P = 0.34) usage for elective cardioversion. There were differences in use of OAC between the countries: Spain used most VKA (89%), while France used least VKA (39%, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

According to current AF guidelines, NOACs are adequate alternatives to VKA for thromboembolic prevention in AF patients undergoing elective cardioversion. Our results indicate that NOAC use is increasing and there is a significant decrease in VKA use.

Comparison of Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND

Decision on the most appropriate oral anticoagulation therapy for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is difficult because multiple treatment options are available, and these vary in their clinical effects and relevant nonclinical characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

To use a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to compare the oral anticoagulants apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and vitamin K antagonist (VKAs; specifically warfarin) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

We identified the evaluation criteria through a targeted literature review and clinical judgment. The final evaluation model included nine clinical events and four other criteria. We ranked possibly fatal clinical event criteria on the basis of the differences in risks of fatal events and the corresponding window of therapeutic opportunity, as observed in clinical trials. Clinical judgment was used to rank other criteria. Full criteria ranking was used to calculate centroid weights, which were combined with individual treatment performances to estimate the overall value score for each treatment.

RESULTS

Using such an MCDA, dabigatran yielded the highest overall value, approximately 6% higher than that of the second-best treatment, apixaban. Dabigatran also had the highest first-rank probability (0.72) in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Rivaroxaban performed worse than the other non-VKA oral anticoagulants, but better than VKAs (with both having 0.00 first-rank probability). The results were insensitive to changes in model structure.

CONCLUSIONS

When all key oral anticoagulant value criteria and their relative importance are investigated in an MCDA, dabigatran appears to rank the highest and warfarin the lowest.

Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation - The Use of NOACs in Everyday Clinical Practice

Non-antivitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have recently emerged as a new class of antithrombotic drugs. Four large-scale, randomised controlled trials (RCT) accredited dabigatran, rivaroxaban and edoxaban with evident advantages for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with warfarin. The superiority concerns not only the manageability but also the antithrombotic efficacy and safety. Aspects of real-life clinical experience with NOAC for stroke prevention in AF are analysed in an attempt to underline some practical differences. If at present the individualisation of the NOAC class drugs is still a subject of debate it is probable that in the near future we will be able to adapt the drug and dosages to individual patient's profile.