Assessment of clinical and economic impact of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs. aspirin alone as a secondary prophylaxis in patients with chronic and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease in the United States.

AIM: The objective in this study was to assess the clinical and economic implications of the inclusion of rivaroxaban as a secondary prophylaxis in patients with chronic or symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) in the United States (US). METHODS: A cost-consequence model was adapted to evaluate the economic impact of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in a hypothetical 1-million-member health plan. The model inputs were taken from multiple sources: efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban + aspirin vs. aspirin alone were abstracted from COMPASS and VOYAGER randomized clinical trials; the prevalence of chronic and symptomatic PAD and incidence rates of clinical events (major adverse cardiac events [MACE], major adverse limb events [MALE], and major bleeding), were abstracted from the analysis of claims data; healthcare costs of clinical events and wholesale acquisition costs for rivaroxaban were abstracted from the literature and Red Book, respectively (2022 USD). One-way sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Over one year, with a 5% uptake of rivaroxaban, the model estimated rivaroxaban + aspirin to reduce 21 MACE/MALE events in the PAD patient population. The reduction in these clinical events offsets the increased risk of major bleeding (16 additional events), demonstrating a positive health benefit of the rivaroxaban addition. These benefits led to a $0.27 incremental cost per member per month (PMPM) to a US plan. The major driver of the incremental cost was the cost of rivaroxaban. In a subgroup of patients with the presence of any high-risk factor (heart failure, diabetes, renal insufficiency, or history of vascular disease affecting two or more vascular beds), the incremental PMPM cost was $0.13. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban + aspirin was found to provide positive net clinical benefit on the annual number of MACE/MALE avoided, with a modest increase in the PMPM cost.

Unintended Consequences of Increased Out-of-Pocket Costs During Medicare Coverage Gap on Anticoagulant Discontinuation and Stroke.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to assess the risk of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) discontinuation among Medicare beneficiaries with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who reach the Medicare coverage gap stratified by low-income subsidy (LIS) status and the impact of DOAC discontinuation on rates of stroke and systemic embolism (SE) among beneficiaries with increased out-of-pocket (OOP) costs due to not receiving LIS. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, Medicare claims data (2015-2020) were used to identify beneficiaries with NVAF who initiated rivaroxaban or apixaban and entered the coverage gap during ≥ 1 year. DOAC discontinuation rates during the coverage gap were stratified by receipt of Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy (LIS), a proxy for not experiencing increased OOP costs. Among non-LIS beneficiaries, incidence rates of stroke and SE during the subsequent 12 months were compared between beneficiaries who did and did not discontinue DOAC in the coverage gap. RESULTS: Among 303,695 beneficiaries, mean age was 77.3 years, and 28% received LIS. After adjusting for baseline differences, non-LIS beneficiaries (N = 218,838) had 78% higher risk of discontinuing DOAC during the coverage gap vs. LIS recipients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.78; 95% CI [1.73, 1.82]). Among non-LIS beneficiaries, DOAC discontinuation during coverage gap (N = 91,397; 34%) was associated with 14% higher risk of experiencing stroke and SE during the subsequent 12 months (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI [1.08, 1.20]). CONCLUSION: Increased OOP costs during Medicare coverage gap were associated with higher risk of DOAC discontinuation, which in turn was associated with higher risk of stroke and SE among beneficiaries with NVAF.

Component Costs of CAR-T Therapy in Addition to Treatment Acquisition Costs in Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), is a B-cell maturation antigen-directed, genetically modified autologous chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) immunotherapy. It is indicated for treatment for adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after four or more prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. The objective of this study was to estimate the per-patient US commercial healthcare costs related to cilta-cel (CARVYKTI®) CAR-T therapy (i.e., costs separate from cilta-cel therapy acquisition) for patients with RRMM. METHODS: US prescribing information for cilta-cel, publicly available data, and published literature were used with clinician input to identify the cost components and unit costs associated with administration of cilta-cel. Cost components included apheresis, bridging therapy, conditioning therapy, administration, and postinfusion monitoring for 1 year of follow-up. Adverse event (AE) management costs for all grades of cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicities, and additional AEs grade ≥ 3 occurring in > 5% of patients were included in the analysis. RESULTS: The estimated per-patient average costs of cilta-cel CAR-T therapy administered exclusively in an inpatient setting, excluding cilta-cel therapy acquisition costs, totaled US$160,933 over a 12 month period. Costs assuming different proportions of inpatient/outpatient administration (85%/15% and 70%/30%) were US$158,095 and US$155,257, respectively. CONCLUSION: Cost estimates from this analysis, which disaggregates CAR-T therapy costs, provide a comprehensive view of the cost components of CAR-T therapy that can help healthcare decision-makers make informed choices regarding the use of cilta-cel. Real-world costs may differ with improved AE prevention and mitigation strategies.

Effectiveness, safety, and healthcare costs associated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin among venous thromboembolism patients with obesity: a real-world study in the United States.

Prior observational studies suggest rivaroxaban is safe and effective among patients with morbid obesity who suffered a venous thromboembolism (VTE) event, but existing data are more limited in the broader population of VTE patients with obesity. This study assessed VTE recurrence, major bleeding, healthcare resource utilization, and healthcare costs among VTE patients with obesity who received rivaroxaban versus warfarin. VTE patients with obesity who initiated rivaroxaban or warfarin after a first VTE (index date) were identified from the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database (01/02/2011-09/30/2019). The follow-up period spanned from the index date until health plan disenrollment, end of data availability, cancer diagnosis/treatment, end of the 12 month post-index period, or (for the analysis of major bleeding) anticoagulant discontinuation or switch. Patient characteristics were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. The weighted rivaroxaban (N = 8666) and warfarin cohorts (N = 5946) were well balanced (mean age = 51 years, females = 52%). Over a 9.6 months mean observation period, rivaroxaban users had a significantly lower risk of VTE recurrence [7.0% vs. 8.2%, HR(95% CI) = 0.85(0.75;0.97)] and a similar risk of major bleeding [4.1% vs. 3.6%, HR(95% CI) = 1.11(0.89;1.37)] relative to warfarin users at 12 months. Relative to warfarin users, rivaroxaban users had significantly fewer all-cause outpatient visits [RR(95% CI) = 0.71(0.70;0.74)]. The higher pharmacy costs incurred by rivaroxaban recipients (cost difference = $1252) were offset by lower medical costs (cost difference = - $2515, all p < 0.05) compared with warfarin recipients. Our findings suggest that rivaroxaban is safe and effective versus warfarin, and associated with lower medical costs among VTE patients with obesity.

Economic burden of rivaroxaban and warfarin among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with obesity and polypharmacy.

Aim: Evaluate healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with rivaroxaban and warfarin among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with obesity and polypharmacy. Materials & methods: IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus (January 2010-September 2019) data were used to identify NVAF patients with obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and polypharmacy (≥5 medications) initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin. Weighted rate ratios and cost differences were evaluated post-treatment initiation. Results: Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly lower rates of HRU, including hospitalization (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.83 [0.77, 0.92]). Medical costs were reduced in rivaroxaban users (difference [95% CI]: -US$6868 [-US$10,628, -US$2954]), resulting in significantly lower total healthcare costs compared with warfarin users (difference [95% CI]: -US$4433 [-US$8136, -US$582]). Conclusion: Rivaroxaban was associated with lower HRU and costs compared with warfarin among NVAF patients with obesity and polypharmacy in commercially insured US patients.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs of rivaroxaban versus warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with obesity in a US population.

AIM: To assess the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and obesity newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin in the US. METHODS: This retrospective study used IQVIA PharMetrics Plus data (01/2010-09/2019) to evaluate patients (≥18 years) with NVAF and obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin (on or after 01/2013). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for confounding between cohorts. HRU and costs were assessed post-treatment initiation. Weighted cohorts were compared using Poisson regression models and cost differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p values generated using non-parametric bootstrap procedures. RESULTS: After IPTW, 10,555 and 5,080 patients were initiated on rivaroxaban and warfarin, respectively (mean age: 59 years). At 12 months follow-up, the rivaroxaban cohort had lower all-cause HRU, including fewer hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR]: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.74, 0.87), emergency room visits (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.97), and outpatient visits (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.77; all p < .05). Medical costs were also reduced in the rivaroxaban cohort (mean difference: -$6,759, 95% CI: -$9,814, -$3,311) due to reduced hospitalization costs (mean difference: -$5,967, 95% CI: -$8,721, -$3,327), resulting in lower total all-cause healthcare costs compared to the warfarin cohort (mean difference: -$4,579, 95% CI: -$7,609, -$1,052; all p < .05). The rivaroxaban cohort also had lower NVAF-related HRU and medical costs driven by lower hospitalization at 12 months post-treatment initiation. HRU and cost reductions associated with rivaroxaban persisted up to 36 months of follow-up. LIMITATIONS: Claims data may have contained inaccuracies and obesity was classified based on ICD diagnosis codes given that patient BMI values were not available. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban was associated with reduced HRU and costs compared to warfarin among NVAF patients with obesity in a real-world US setting.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs of major atherothrombotic vascular events among patients with peripheral artery disease after revascularization.

AIMS: Peripheral artery disease (PAD), often treated with lower extremity revascularization, is associated with risk of major atherothrombotic vascular events (acute limb ischemia [ALI], major non-traumatic lower-limb amputation, myocardial infarction [MI], ischemic stroke, cardiovascular death). This study aims to assess healthcare resource utilization and costs of such events among patients with PAD after revascularization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥50 years with PAD who were treated with lower-extremity revascularization were identified from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart claims database (01/2014-06/2019). The first lower extremity revascularization after PAD diagnosis was defined as the index date. Patients had ≥6 months of health plan enrollment before the index date. Patients were followed until the earliest of 1) end of enrollment or data; 2) diagnosis of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism; or 3) oral anticoagulant use. All-cause healthcare resource use per-patient-year was compared before and after a major atherothrombotic vascular event post-revascularization among those with an event. Additionally, event-related healthcare costs per-patient-year were reported for each event type. RESULTS: Of the 38,439 PAD patients meeting the study criteria, 6,675 (17.4%) had a major atherothrombotic vascular event. On average, patients were observed for 7.3 months before an event and 6.2 months after an event. Patients with an event had significantly higher all-cause healthcare resource use versus similar metrics pre-event (e.g. inpatient visits among those with ALI: 3.5 ± 5.8 post-event vs. 2.0 ± 8.1 pre-event, p < .05). Event-related costs ranged from $57,825±$131,810 per-patient-year for ischemic stroke to $108,302±$150,168 for major non-traumatic lower-limb amputation. LIMITATIONS: Data do not contain clinical information. Additionally, results are limited to commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: Patients with PAD who experience major atherothrombotic vascular events post-revascularization have considerably higher healthcare resource use and costs compared with similar metrics pre-event. Therefore, reducing the rate of such events could reduce overall healthcare costs for this population.

Economic Implications of Preventing Major Cardiovascular and Limb Events with Rivaroxaban plus Aspirin in Patients with Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) have increased risks for cardiovascular (CV)-related morbidity and mortality. In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) clinical trial of such patients, rivaroxaban plus aspirin demonstrated a significant reduction in major adverse CV events (MACE), a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, and CV death, and major adverse limb events (MALE), a composite of chronic and acute limb ischemia, and major amputation resulting from vascular events, versus aspirin alone. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the 1-year economic implications of preventing MACE and MALE with the use of rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone among patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD in a US commercial health plan. METHOD: A cost-consequence model was developed to evaluate the economic impact of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in a hypothetical 1-million-member health plan. The model inputs were taken from the COMPASS study (ie, the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs aspirin), Optum Integrated Database (ie, the prevalence of chronic CAD and/or PAD, incidence rates, and healthcare costs of MACE, MALE, and major bleeding), and the RED BOOK (ie, wholesale drug acquisition costs). The cost inputs were in 2019 US dollars. One-way sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A 1-year treatment with rivaroxaban plus aspirin resulted in reductions of MACE and MALE, which balance the increased risk for bleeding versus aspirin alone and indicate a net health benefit for this drug regimen. These reductions were achieved at an incremental per-member per-month (PMPM) cost of $0.16, mainly because of rivaroxaban's acquisition cost. In patients with ≥2 MACE or MALE risk factors, the incremental PMPM cost was $0.09, given the increased offset in rivaroxaban's acquisition cost by reduced rates of MACE or MALE. CONCLUSIONS: In an era of emerging thrombocardiology, treatment with rivaroxaban plus aspirin offers an effective thrombotic risk management strategy for healthcare stakeholders in the management of chronic CAD and/or PAD. The contribution of rivaroxaban would be greater in patients with ≥2 risk factors for MACE or MALE.

Costs associated with renal and cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy: a cost model based on the CREDENCE clinical trial.

Objective: To estimate the avoided costs associated with reductions in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), certain CV events (non-fatal myocardial infarction [MI], non-fatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure [HHF]), and renal and CV death for patients treated with canagliflozin versus placebo, based on CREDENCE trial results.Methods: Renal (including ESKD) and CV events averted, based on the differences in adjusted rates of events between the canagliflozin and placebo arms in CREDENCE, were projected to the proportion of the members of a managed care organization (MCO) fitting the inclusion criteria in CREDENCE (i.e. diabetic nephropathy, at least 30 years old). The number of events averted for the population was multiplied by the unit-cost of the event, extracted from a targeted literature review, to obtain costs avoided per member per year (PMPY). One-way sensitivity analysis provided a range for the cost avoided PMPY, based on variations in the events averted, unit cost and size of the projected population.Results: Costs avoided PMPY were $2.92 for ESKD with a range of $1.28-$4.20. Costs avoided PMPY were $0.54 (-$0.28-$1.16) for non-fatal MI, $0.30 (-$0.22-$0.65) for non-fatal stroke, $1.56 ($0.80-$2.11) for HHF, $0.06 ($0.05-$0.07) for renal death, and $0.51 ($0.00-$0.91) for CV death. For non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke, the lower bound of the range is interpreted as an incremental cost.Conclusions: Positive costs avoided for each of the outcomes considered were predicted in the main analysis, with ESKD as the outcome predicted to have the greatest costs avoided at $2.92 PMPY.

Assessing disparities in the receipt of inhaled corticosteroid prescriptions for asthma by Hispanic and non-Hispanic white patients.

RATIONALE: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are widely used in the management of asthma. Prior research suggests that access to ICS among patients with asthma may vary by ethnicity. OBJECTIVES: Study objectives were to determine if there is a difference in the proportion of Hispanic and non-Hispanic white patients with asthma in the receipt of an ICS prescription and to determine independent predictors for the receipt of an ICS prescription for asthma. METHODS: The 2009 U.S. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data were used to compare the receipt of ICS prescription among patients with asthma with the following inclusion criteria: Hispanic and non-Hispanic white ethnicity, age over 4 years, and diagnostic codes for asthma. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine the influence of race/ethnicity and other significant factors on the receipt of an ICS prescription. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 1,469 patients with asthma, corresponding to a weighted sample of 14,401,069 U.S. patients with asthma who met the inclusion criteria, represented by 16.1% Hispanic, 59.5% female, and mean age of 39.9 years. Among non-Hispanic white patients with asthma, 39.7% (35% children and 41% adults) had a receipt of an ICS prescription compared with 22.2% of Hispanic patients (23.9% children and 21.2% adults); P < 0.001. In the multiple regression model, Hispanic patients aged 18 years or older had 43% lower odds (odds ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-0.9) of having a receipt of an ICS prescription compared with non-Hispanic white patients, independent of other factors. There was no significant difference in receipt of an ICS prescription between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white children with asthma (aged 4-17 yr). CONCLUSIONS: The disparity in the receipt of ICS prescription between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white adult patients with asthma could result in suboptimal asthma management, a higher rate of exacerbations, and higher health care costs in this growing minority population. The differences and potential disparities in the receipt of an ICS prescription between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white patients with asthma warrant further investigation to better understand the reasons for such disparities, along with their impact on the U.S. health care burden and interventions that can be undertaken to reduce these disparities.