This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Brian D. Kan, MD
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles, Calif

David A. Katz, MD
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine Madison

JAMA. 1996;275(12):909.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Dr Gage and colleagues¹ presented a thorough and well-done analysis of warfarin vs aspirin for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. However, we disagree with their conclusions for low-risk patients. The authors conclude, "In 65-year-old patients with NVAF [nonvalvular atrial fibrillation] but no other risk factors for stroke, prescribing warfarin instead of aspirin would affect quality-adjusted survival minimally but increase costs significantly." They argue that, in these patients, "prescribing warfarin... is prohibitively expensive relative to other health interventions." A close examination of their results and data from the randomized NVAF trials suggests that this conclusion is questionable.

The marginal effectiveness of warfarin vs aspirin in the group at low risk for stroke was 0.01 quality-adjusted life year (QALY). A marginal effectiveness value in this range is not robust and is generally considered a clinical "toss-up."² Because the cost-effectiveness ratio is calculated by placing the effectiveness value in the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?