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

Brian F. Gage, MD, MSc
Washington University St Louis, Mo

Andria B. Cardinalli; Gregory W. Albers, MD; Douglas K. Owens, MD, MSc
Stanford University Stanford, Calif

JAMA. 1996;275(12):910.

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

In Reply.

—We appreciate the interest of Drs Kan and Katz in our analysis.¹ They are correct that our wide estimate of the cost-effectiveness of warfarin therapy in 65-year-old low-risk patients is a consequence of the minimal average gain (0.01 QALY) conferred by treating these patients with warfarin instead of aspirin. They are also correct in noting that the cost-effectiveness of warfarin therapy is sensitive to patient preferences² as well as to risk of stroke. In fact, warfarin will be cost-effective even in some (highly selected) 65-year-old patients with NVAF and no other clinical risk factors for stroke (ie, low-risk patients who indicate that warfarin therapy would not affect their quality of life or who have an ominous echocardiogram that portends stroke).

We disagree, however, with the suggestion that we apply the 4.3% annual rate of stroke to our low-risk cohort. Because our low-risk cohort was defined identically . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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