Panda’s point is well-taken : namely, that we will always be discovering some better drug that decreases risk from 2% to 1.5%, even though it costs us a lot more money because it’s new and brand name. I often ask myself if there will ever be an endpoint. But using warfarin is a terrible example. Overall, the number of strokes you prevent with warfarin may in general be more cost effective than not using warfarin , because strokes are so damn expensive to have (and not even counting emotional and psychological costs). Yes, I know this study doesn’t look at warfarin adverse effects, but it’s not as cut and dry as his post makes it seem.

The interesting thing is that without coumadin, the risk of forming an atrial clot is about six percent per year.

(Also, just to be clear, since I’m a junior level Afib researcher, the risk of stroke is about 5-6% per year with Afib, not necessarily the risk of clot formation. And this risk goes up pretty substantially once you hit 75. But then again, so do your risks of falls, as we all have seen too well.)

Comments Off on Warfarin And Cost-Effectiveness