IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Dronedarone for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal

  • Claire McKenna

    (1Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK)

  • Emma Maund

    (2Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK)

  • Muhammad Sarowar

    (1Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK)

  • David Fox

    (2Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK)

  • Matt Stevenson

    (3School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Chris Pepper

    (4Yorkshire Heart Centre, Leeds, UK)

  • Nerys Woolacott

    (2Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK)

  • Stephen Palmer

    (1Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK)

Registered author(s):

    The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of dronedarone (Multaq, Sanofi-Aventis Limited, UK) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics, both at the University of York, were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions regarding the use of dronedarone within the UK NHS. The ERG review comprised a critique of the submitted evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of dronedarone. The ERG examined the search strategy used to obtain relevant evidence, the selection of studies included in the assessment, outcome measures chosen and statistical methods employed. The ERG also validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model and used it to explore the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results to key assumptions. The main clinical effectiveness evidence supporting the use of dronedarone as a treatment for AF came from four randomized controlled trials. These trials were compared with a broader set of trials examining the effectiveness of other AADs for AF: amiodarone, sotalol and class 1c agents (flecainide and propafenone). The evidence suggested that all AADs decreased the recurrence of AF but dronedarone had the smallest effect. A mixed treatment comparison analysis of the trials showed that dronedarone was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality than other AADs, but this was highly uncertain. There was limited evidence to assess the effect of dronedarone on stroke, and no statistically significant differences between dronedarone and other AADs were found for treatment discontinuation. From the evidence presented by the manufacturer, dronedarone appeared highly cost effective in each of the population groups examined compared with using standard baseline therapy alone as first-line treatment, or compared with sotalol or amiodarone as first-line AAD, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below £20 000 per QALY gained. The ICER for dronedarone relative to class 1c agents was around £19 000 per QALY. Although the evidence presented by the manufacturer indicated that dronedarone was cost effective, the estimates of treatment effect relative to other AADs and safety in the longer term were highly uncertain. The NICE Appraisal Committee in its preliminary guidance did not recommend the use of dronedarone for AF. However, following the response from a large number of consultees and commentators, NICE revised its preliminary guidance to allow the use of the drug in a specific subgroup of AF patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

    Volume (Year): 30 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 1 ()
    Pages: 35-46

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:1:p:35-46
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:1:p:35-46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.