Cost-Effectiveness of Rate- and Rhythm-Control Drugs for Treating Atrial Fibrillation in Korea

Min Kim, Woojin Kim, Changsoo Kim, Boyoung Joung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although the economic and mortality burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) is substantial, it remains unclear which treatment strategies for rate and rhythm control are most cost-effective. Consequently, economic factors can play an adjunctive role in guiding treatment selection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We built a Markov chain Monte Carlo model using the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. Drugs for rate control and rhythm control in AF were analyzed. Cost-effective therapies were selected using a cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated by net cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). RESULTS: In the National Health Insurance Service data, 268149 patients with prevalent AF (age ≥18 years) were identified between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015. Among them, 212459 and 55690 patients were taking drugs for rate and rhythm control, respectively. Atenolol cost $714/QALY. Among the rate-control medications, the cost of propranolol was lowest at $487/QALY, while that of carvedilol was highest at $1363/QALY. Among the rhythm-control medications, the cost of pilsicainide was lowest at $638/QALY, while that of amiodarone was highest at $986/QALY. Flecainide and propafenone cost $834 and $830/QALY, respectively. The cost-effectiveness threshold of all drugs was lower than $30000/QALY. Compared with atenolol, the rate-control drugs propranolol, betaxolol, bevantolol, bisoprolol, diltiazem, and verapamil, as well as the rhythm-control drugs sotalol, pilsicainide, flecainide, propafenone, and dronedarone, showed better incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSION: Propranolol and pilsicainide appear to be cost-effective in patients with AF in Korea assuming that drug usage or compliance is the same.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1157-1163
Number of pages7
JournalYonsei medical journal
Volume60
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Dec 1

Fingerprint

Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Drug and Narcotic Control
Korea
Atrial Fibrillation
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cost Control
Costs and Cost Analysis
Propranolol
Propafenone
Flecainide
Atenolol
National Health Programs
Betaxolol
Economics
Bisoprolol
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Sotalol
Markov Chains
Amiodarone
Diltiazem

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{4696a0f97ee5494580882f79285f6b39,
title = "Cost-Effectiveness of Rate- and Rhythm-Control Drugs for Treating Atrial Fibrillation in Korea",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Although the economic and mortality burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) is substantial, it remains unclear which treatment strategies for rate and rhythm control are most cost-effective. Consequently, economic factors can play an adjunctive role in guiding treatment selection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We built a Markov chain Monte Carlo model using the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. Drugs for rate control and rhythm control in AF were analyzed. Cost-effective therapies were selected using a cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated by net cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). RESULTS: In the National Health Insurance Service data, 268149 patients with prevalent AF (age ≥18 years) were identified between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015. Among them, 212459 and 55690 patients were taking drugs for rate and rhythm control, respectively. Atenolol cost $714/QALY. Among the rate-control medications, the cost of propranolol was lowest at $487/QALY, while that of carvedilol was highest at $1363/QALY. Among the rhythm-control medications, the cost of pilsicainide was lowest at $638/QALY, while that of amiodarone was highest at $986/QALY. Flecainide and propafenone cost $834 and $830/QALY, respectively. The cost-effectiveness threshold of all drugs was lower than $30000/QALY. Compared with atenolol, the rate-control drugs propranolol, betaxolol, bevantolol, bisoprolol, diltiazem, and verapamil, as well as the rhythm-control drugs sotalol, pilsicainide, flecainide, propafenone, and dronedarone, showed better incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSION: Propranolol and pilsicainide appear to be cost-effective in patients with AF in Korea assuming that drug usage or compliance is the same.",
author = "Min Kim and Woojin Kim and Changsoo Kim and Boyoung Joung",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3349/ymj.2019.60.12.1157",
language = "English",
volume = "60",
pages = "1157--1163",
journal = "Yonsei Medical Journal",
issn = "0513-5796",
publisher = "Yonsei University College of Medicine",
number = "12",

}

Cost-Effectiveness of Rate- and Rhythm-Control Drugs for Treating Atrial Fibrillation in Korea. / Kim, Min; Kim, Woojin; Kim, Changsoo; Joung, Boyoung.

In: Yonsei medical journal, Vol. 60, No. 12, 01.12.2019, p. 1157-1163.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-Effectiveness of Rate- and Rhythm-Control Drugs for Treating Atrial Fibrillation in Korea

AU - Kim, Min

AU - Kim, Woojin

AU - Kim, Changsoo

AU - Joung, Boyoung

PY - 2019/12/1

Y1 - 2019/12/1

N2 - PURPOSE: Although the economic and mortality burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) is substantial, it remains unclear which treatment strategies for rate and rhythm control are most cost-effective. Consequently, economic factors can play an adjunctive role in guiding treatment selection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We built a Markov chain Monte Carlo model using the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. Drugs for rate control and rhythm control in AF were analyzed. Cost-effective therapies were selected using a cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated by net cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). RESULTS: In the National Health Insurance Service data, 268149 patients with prevalent AF (age ≥18 years) were identified between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015. Among them, 212459 and 55690 patients were taking drugs for rate and rhythm control, respectively. Atenolol cost $714/QALY. Among the rate-control medications, the cost of propranolol was lowest at $487/QALY, while that of carvedilol was highest at $1363/QALY. Among the rhythm-control medications, the cost of pilsicainide was lowest at $638/QALY, while that of amiodarone was highest at $986/QALY. Flecainide and propafenone cost $834 and $830/QALY, respectively. The cost-effectiveness threshold of all drugs was lower than $30000/QALY. Compared with atenolol, the rate-control drugs propranolol, betaxolol, bevantolol, bisoprolol, diltiazem, and verapamil, as well as the rhythm-control drugs sotalol, pilsicainide, flecainide, propafenone, and dronedarone, showed better incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSION: Propranolol and pilsicainide appear to be cost-effective in patients with AF in Korea assuming that drug usage or compliance is the same.

AB - PURPOSE: Although the economic and mortality burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) is substantial, it remains unclear which treatment strategies for rate and rhythm control are most cost-effective. Consequently, economic factors can play an adjunctive role in guiding treatment selection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We built a Markov chain Monte Carlo model using the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. Drugs for rate control and rhythm control in AF were analyzed. Cost-effective therapies were selected using a cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated by net cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). RESULTS: In the National Health Insurance Service data, 268149 patients with prevalent AF (age ≥18 years) were identified between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015. Among them, 212459 and 55690 patients were taking drugs for rate and rhythm control, respectively. Atenolol cost $714/QALY. Among the rate-control medications, the cost of propranolol was lowest at $487/QALY, while that of carvedilol was highest at $1363/QALY. Among the rhythm-control medications, the cost of pilsicainide was lowest at $638/QALY, while that of amiodarone was highest at $986/QALY. Flecainide and propafenone cost $834 and $830/QALY, respectively. The cost-effectiveness threshold of all drugs was lower than $30000/QALY. Compared with atenolol, the rate-control drugs propranolol, betaxolol, bevantolol, bisoprolol, diltiazem, and verapamil, as well as the rhythm-control drugs sotalol, pilsicainide, flecainide, propafenone, and dronedarone, showed better incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSION: Propranolol and pilsicainide appear to be cost-effective in patients with AF in Korea assuming that drug usage or compliance is the same.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075564178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075564178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3349/ymj.2019.60.12.1157

DO - 10.3349/ymj.2019.60.12.1157

M3 - Article

C2 - 31769246

AN - SCOPUS:85075564178

VL - 60

SP - 1157

EP - 1163

JO - Yonsei Medical Journal

JF - Yonsei Medical Journal

SN - 0513-5796

IS - 12

ER -