Deans' stroke musings: Economic Evaluation of Andexanet Versus Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for Reversal of Factor Xa-Associated Intracranial Hemorrhage

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Monday, March 1, 2021

Economic Evaluation of Andexanet Versus Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for Reversal of Factor Xa-Associated Intracranial Hemorrhage

WHOM allows research into cost before telling us exactly how to 100% recover from this Intracranial Hemorrhage? THIS is what is wrong with stroke, totally wrong focus of stroke research. All because we have NO stroke strategy leading to 100% recovery, and that is because we have NO STROKE LEADERSHIP.

Economic Evaluation of Andexanet Versus Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for Reversal of Factor Xa-Associated Intracranial Hemorrhage

Andrew Micieli

Andrew M. Demchuk

Harindra C. Wijeysundera

Originally published1 Mar 2021https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.031108Stroke. ;0

Abstract

Background and Purpose:

Andexanet was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for reversal of life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding associated with factor Xa anticoagulation; however, the cost-effectiveness of Andexanet compared with standard of care (ie, prothrombin complex concentrate, PCC) in patients with factor Xa–associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH) is unknown.

Methods:

Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov cohort decision analytic model with a lifetime horizon was completed to determine the costs and benefits of Andexanet compared with PCC for reversal of factor Xa–associated ICrH. The population of interest was patients living in Canada on chronic factor Xa inhibitors for prevention of ischemic stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation or the prevention/treatment of venous thromboembolism, presenting with an ICrH. Outcomes of interest were life expectancy (measured in years), quality-adjusted life years (QALY), costs (reported in 2020 Canadian dollars), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Results:

An overall reduction in fatal ICrH and increase in thromboembolic events was associated with Andexanet compared with PCC. Andexanet had the highest discounted life expectancy of 2.53 years and a discounted QALY of 1.55. PCC had a discounted life expectancy of 2.09 years and a discounted QALY of 1.28. The average discounted lifetime costs were $237 177 Canadian dollars for Andexanet and $177 871 Canadian dollars for PCC. The strategy of Andexanet had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $219 652 per QALY gained compared with the comparator of PCC. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that Andexanet (at its current cost) was cost-effective in 19% of simulations using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY and 33% of simulations at $150 000/QALY. A 1-way sensitivity analysis found that for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to be <$150 000/QALY gained, Andexanet high or standard dosing would require a price reduction to <$24 000 Canadian (at current baseline efficacy).

Conclusions:

Based on available evidence, Andexanet represents low value for reversal of factor Xa–associated ICrH; however, there is substantial uncertainty reflecting the currently available data. Further comparative evidence and costing data will become available in the future with randomized trials of Andexanet versus PCC.