MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413855554 · doi:10.1093/europace/euaf195

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban vs. aspirin for the reduction of thrombo-embolism in high-risk patients with device-detected atrial fibrillation: insights from the ARTESiA trial

2025· article· en· W4413855554 on OpenAlexafffundabout
André Lamy, Roopinder K. Sandhu, Wesley Tong, William F. McIntyre, Renato D. Lópes, Christopher B. Granger, David J. Wright, Jan M. Nielsen, Valentina Kutyifa, Julia W. Erath, Marco Alings, David H. Birnie, Dan Atar, Stefan H. Hohnloser, Cecilia Linde, Josef Kautzner, Juan Benezet‐Mazuecos, A. John Camm, Christian Sticherling, Michael R. Gold, Charlotte Larroudé, Jeff S. Healey

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of AlbertaCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster University
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMedtronicHamilton Health SciencesPopulation Health Research Institute
KeywordsApixabanAtrial fibrillationAspirinMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineReduction (mathematics)Randomized controlled trialWarfarinRivaroxaban

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Apixaban was superior to aspirin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in participants with subclinical atrial fibrillation (SCAF) in the Apixaban for the Reduction of Thromboembolism in Patients With Device-Detected Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation trial. This was especially true for those with CHA2DS2-VASc score > 4. Understanding the cost-effectiveness of treating SCAF is important for decision-makers. METHODS AND RESULTS: Canadian, UK, German, and US direct healthcare costs [in 2023 US dollars (USD)] were applied to hospitalized events (including strokes and bleeds) and study drugs for all participants with a CHA2DS2-VASc score > 4 to determine the mean cost per participant during the trial (mean follow-up 3.5 years). A daily cost of $0.63, $0.11, $2.26, and $6.06 for apixaban in Canada, the UK, Germany, and the USA was used. If in-trial results were not cost-saving (below $0), the prospective plan was to perform a lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model and a willingness-to-pay of 50 000 USD per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). After considering the cost of study medication and clinical events over 3.5 years, apixaban was dominant (cost-saving and more effective) in Canada (-$2301) and the UK (-$902) but cost more in Germany and the USA ($600 and $1990, respectively). Over a lifetime, treatment with apixaban produced a net gain of 0.107 QALYs, but with costs in both Germany ($2623 more) and the USA ($9110 more), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $24 514 per QALY for Germany and $85 140 for the USA. CONCLUSION: In patients with SCAF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score > 4, apixaban is cost saving in Canada and the UK and cost-effective in Germany. Apixaban was not cost-effective in the USA under the base cost assumption but would be cost-effective at a daily cost of $4.35 and cost saving at $3.59.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEP EuropaceSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207