Cost-Effectiveness Of Dronedarone In Comparison With Relevant Treatment Alternatives In Germany

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a progressive chronic disease that is related to a higher risk for cardiovascular events and an increased mortality. Previous anti-arrhythmic treatments were either related to an increase in mortality, or came with an elevated risk of adverse events or did not show a satisfying reduction of disease progression. In the ATHENA-trial dronedarone proved to be a clinically superior treatment option.Methods: Using a health economic model, the cost-effectiveness of dronedarone on top of standard of care (SOC) was evaluated versus SOC alone, as wells against the common treatment alternatives amiodarone, sotalol, and flecainide. The perspective of the social health insurance was applied.Results: In the base case, costs per life year gained for dronedarone on top of SOC versus, amiodarone, sotalol and flecainide were estimated to (SIC) 2.600, (SIC) 1.700 and (SIC) 3.000, respectively. When comparing dronedarone to SOC alone the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was estimated at (SIC) 10.500 and was higher for patients with high risk of having stroke or a previous history of structural heart disease. The main driver for the cost-effectiveness of dronedarone was the increased survival of patients on dronedarone therapy.Conclusion: Dronedaron represents a cost-effective treatment option for AF in Germany.