The Financial Burden of Aspirin versus Oral Factor Xa Inhibitors for Thromboprophylaxis Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin and oral factor Xa inhibitor thromboprophylaxis regimens are associated with similarly low rates of venous thromboembolism following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the rate of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is lower with aspirin use. This study aimed to compare the cost differential between aspirin and factor Xa inhibitor thromboprophylaxis with respect to PJI management. METHODS: We used previously published rates of PJI following aspirin and factor Xa inhibitor thromboprophylaxis in primary TKA patients at a single, large institution. Prices for individual drugs were obtained from our hospital's pharmacy service. The cost of PJI included that of 2-stage septic revision, with or without the cost of 1-year follow-up. National data were obtained to determine annual projected TKA volume. RESULTS: The per-patient costs associated with a 28-day course of aspirin versus factor Xa inhibitor thromboprophylaxis were $17.36 and $3,784.20, respectively. Including cost of follow-up, per-patient costs for a 28-day course of aspirin versus factor Xa inhibitors increased to $73,358.76 and $77,125.60, respectively. The weighted average per-patient costs for a 28-day course were $237.38 and $4,370.93, respectively. The annual cost difference could amount to over $14.1 billion in the United States by 2040. CONCLUSIONS: The per-patient cost associated with factor Xa inhibitor thromboprophylaxis is as much as 1,980.6% higher than that of an aspirin regimen due to increased costs of primary treatment, differential PJI rates, and high costs of management. In an era of value-based care, the use of aspirin is associated with major cost advantages.

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.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Compared with Aspirin Alone in the COMPASS Trial: A US Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg daily was shown to be better than aspirin 100 mg daily for preventing cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with either stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). The cost-effectiveness of this regimen in this population is essential for decision-makers to know. METHODS: US direct healthcare system costs (in USD) were applied to hospitalized events, procedures and study drugs utilized by all patients. We determined the mean cost per participant for the full duration of the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months) plus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime using a two-state Markov model with 1-year cycle length. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the price of rivaroxaban and the annual discontinuation rate. RESULTS: The costs of events and procedures were reduced for Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) patients who received rivaroxaban 2.5 mg orally (BID) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. Total costs were higher for the combination group ($7426 versus $4173) after considering acquisition costs of the study drug. Over a lifetime, patients receiving rivaroxaban plus ASA incurred $27,255 more and gained 1.17 QALYs compared with those receiving ASA alone resulting in an ICER of $23,295/QALY. ICERs for PAD only and polyvascular disease subgroups were lower. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID plus ASA compared with ASA alone was cost-effective (high value) in the USA. COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424.

Benefits and Harms of Standard Versus Reduced-Dose Direct Oral Anticoagulant Therapy for Older Adults With Multiple Morbidities and Atrial Fibrillation.

Background Dose reduction of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) medications is inconsistently applied to older adults with multiple morbidities, potentially due to perceived harms and unknown benefits of standard dosing. Methods and Results Using 2013 to 2017 US Medicare claims linked to Minimum Data Set records, we conducted a retrospective cohort study. We identified DOAC initiators (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban) aged ≥65 years with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation residing in a nursing home. We estimated inverse-probability of treatment weights for DOAC dose using propensity scores. We examined safety (hospitalization for major bleeding) and effectiveness outcomes (all-cause mortality, thrombosis [myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, venous thromboembolism]). We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs using cause-specific hazard-regression models. Of 21 878 DOAC initiators, 48% received reduced dosing. The mean age of residents was 82.0 years, 66% were female, and 31% had moderate/severe cognitive impairment. After estimating inverse-probability of treatment weights, standard dosing was associated with a higher rate of bleeding (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.03-1.37]; 9.4 versus 8.0 events per 100 person-years). Standard-dose therapy was associated with the highest rates of bleeding among those aged >80 years (9.1 versus 6.7 events per 100 person-years) and with a body mass index <30 kg/m2 (9.4 versus 7.4 events per 100 person-years). There was no association of dosing with mortality (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.96-1.06]) or thrombotic events (HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.96-1.41]). Conclusions In this nationwide study of nursing home residents with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, we found a higher rate of bleeding and little difference in effectiveness of standard versus reduced-dose DOAC treatment. Our results support the use of reduced-dose DOACs for many older adults with multiple morbidities.

Contributory factors and patient harm including deaths associated direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) medication incidents: evaluation of real world data reported to the National Reporting and Learning System.

INTRODUCTION: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are considered high risk medicines and are frequently associated with medication errors. The nature of incidents and associated outcomes of such incidents are poorly understood. AREAS COVERED: Using a national patient safety reporting database, the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS), this study aimed to report the contributory factors and outcomes including severe harm and deaths related to all safety incidents involving DOACs reported in England and Wales between 2017-2019. Reason's accident causation model was used to classify the incidents. EXPERT OPINION: A total of 15,730 incident reports were analyzed. A total of 25 deaths were reported with a further 270 and 55 incidents leading to moderate and severe harm, respectively. A further 8.8% (n = 1381) of incidents were associated with low degree of harm. The majority of the incidents involved active failures (n = 13776; 87.58) including duplication of anticoagulant therapies, patients being discharged without DOACs, non-consideration of renal function, and lack of commencement of DOACs post-surgery suggesting preventability of such reported incidents. This study shows that medication incidents involving DOACs have the potential to cause severe harm and deaths, and there is a need to promote guideline adherence through education, training, and decision support technologies.

The cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in the COMPASS trial.

AIMS: The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin 100 mg was more effective than aspirin 100 mg daily alone for the prevention of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban using patient-level data from the COMPASS trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed an in-trial analysis and extrapolated our results for 33 years using a two-state Markov model with a 1-year cycle length. Hospitalization events, procedures, and study drugs were documented for patients. We applied country-specific (Canada, France, and Germany) direct healthcare system costs (in USD) to healthcare resources consumed by patients. Average cost per patient during the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost-effectiveness were calculated. Costs of events and procedures were reduced with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin. The addition of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID increased total costs for the combination group. Over a lifetime horizon (in trial +33 years), rivaroxaban plus aspirin was associated with 1.17 QALYs gained, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3946/QALY, $9962/QALY, and $10 264/QALY in Canada, France, and Germany, respectively. PAD and polyvascular disease subgroups had lower ICERs. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduces direct healthcare costs. After acquisition costs of rivaroxaban, the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin is highly cost-effective in Canada, France, and Germany.(COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424).

Prescribing Patterns of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Kidney Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The association of patient and prescriber characteristics with use of warfarin versus direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is not well studied. METHODS: The 20% Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Parts A, B, and D claims data from 2010 to 2017 were used to identify patients with stage 3, 4, or 5 CKD and AF who received a DOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban) or warfarin. Prescribers were categorized as cardiologists, primary care providers (PCPs), and others. Using logistic regression, we estimated odds ratios (ORs) for the association of baseline characteristics and prescriber specialty with first use of a DOAC, relative to warfarin. RESULTS: We identified 22,739 individuals with CKD who were newly initiated on oral anticoagulation for AF. New DOAC prescriptions increased from 490 in 2011 to 3261 in 2017, and displaced warfarin over time (1849, 2011; 945, 2017). By Q4 of 2014, cardiologists prescribed DOACs as initial treatment more frequently than warfarin, but non-cardiologists did not do so until 2015. As of 2017, apixaban was the most widely prescribed anticoagulant, comprising 56% and 50% of prescriptions by cardiologists and non-cardiologists, respectively. PCPs (OR 0.54, 0.51-0.58) and other providers (OR 0.55, 0.51-0.59) were less likely than cardiologists to prescribe DOACs. CONCLUSIONS: DOAC prescriptions, particularly apixaban, increased over time and gradually displaced warfarin. The total number of patients with AF and CKD receiving anticoagulation increased over time. Cardiologists increased DOAC prescriptions more rapidly than non-cardiologists.

Efficacy and Safety Assessment of Rivaroxaban for the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis in a Chinese Population.

We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban for acute and long-term management of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). This study reviewed CVST-diagnosed patients admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University from January 2015 to December 2020. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent thrombosis or major bleeding events. The secondary efficacy outcomes included a disease recovery time (DRT) presenting the time from admission to the endpoint as recovery (the modified Rankin scale [mRS] score [0-1]) within 30 and 90 days, and length of hospital stay (LHS). Patients treated with rivaroxaban (38) and warfarin (45) were enrolled in the final analysis. The primary outcome had no significant difference (5.3% vs 11.1%, P = .576) between the 2 groups. The secondary efficacy outcome regarding the median 30-d DRT was 17 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.6-19.4) in the rivaroxaban group, compared with 26.0 days (95% CI, 16.8-35.2) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 1.806; 95% CI, 1.051-3.103; log-rank P = .026). Two groups have a significant difference in LHS (P = .041). Patients with cerebral edema, intracerebral hemorrhage, and mild/moderate disability (admission mRS score [2-3]) treated with rivaroxaban recovered faster than those with warfarin (log-rank P < .05). Patients with cerebral edema, intracerebral hemorrhage, and mild/moderate disability treated with rivaroxaban had a shorter recovery time than those treated with warfarin within 1 month from admission, indicating that rivaroxaban a promising convenient therapy for CVST, helping them speedily restore social functions.

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Resistance and Its Viscoelastic Assessment in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients.

Critically ill COVID-19 patients present an inflammatory and procoagulant status with a high rate of relevant macro- and microvascular thrombosis. Furthermore, high rates of heparin resistance have been described; yet, individualized anticoagulation by drug monitoring has not been sufficiently researched. We analyzed data from critically ill COVID-19 patients treated at Innsbruck Medical University Hospital with routinely adapted low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) doses according to anti-Xa peak levels, and regularly performed ClotPro analyses (a viscoelastic hemostatic whole blood test). A total of 509 anti-Xa peak measurements in 91 patients were categorized as below (<0.008 IU/mL/mg), within (0.008-0-012 IU/mL/mg) or above (> 0.012 IU/mL/mg) expected ranges with respect to the administered LMWH doses. Besides intergroup comparisons, correlations between anti-Xa levels and ClotPro clotting times (CTs) were performed (226 time points in 84 patients). Anti-Xa peak levels remained below the expected range in the majority of performed measurements (63.7%). Corresponding patients presented with higher C-reactive protein and D-dimer but lower antithrombin levels when compared with patients achieving or exceeding the expected range. Consequently, higher enoxaparin doses were applied in the sub-expected anti-Xa range group. Importantly, 47 (51.6%) patients switched between groups during their intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Anti-Xa levels correlated weakly with IN test CT and moderately with Russell's viper venom (RVV) test CT. Critically ill COVID-19 patients present with a high rate of LMWH resistance but with a variable LMWH response during their ICU stay. Therefore, LMWH-anti-Xa monitoring seems inevitable to achieve adequate target ranges. Furthermore, we propose the use of ClotPro's RVV test to assess the coagulation status during LMWH administration, as it correlates well with anti-Xa levels but more holistically reflects the coagulation cascade than anti-Xa activity alone.

Costs and Healthcare Resource Utilization Associated with Idarucizumab or Andexanet Alfa Oral Anticoagulant Reversal in Patients Hospitalized with Life-Threatening Bleeds.

Purpose: To assess costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) associated with the use of idarucizumab for the reversal of dabigatran and andexanet alfa for the reversal of direct oral Factor Xa inhibitors. Methods: This retrospective study utilizing Premier Healthcare Database (PHD) included patients aged ≥18 years on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) who experienced life-threatening bleeds, discharged from the hospital during 5/1/2018-6/30/2019, and received idarucizumab or andexanet alfa. Inverse of treatment probability weighting (IPTW) method was used to balance patient and clinical characteristics between treatment cohorts. Results: Idarucizumab patients were older than andexanet alfa patients (median age 81 vs 77 years; p < 0.001), and less likely to experience intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) (37.1%vs 73.8%; p = 0.001). After IPTW adjustment, idarucizumab patients incurred lower mean total hospital costs ($30,413 ± $33,028 vs $44,477 ± $30,036; p < 0.001),and mean intensive care unit (ICU) cost ($25,114 ± $30,433 vs $43,484 ± $29,335; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Anticoagulant reversal therapy with idarucizumab was associated with significantly lower adjusted mean total hospital and ICU costs compared with andexanet alfa. However, a higher prevalence of ICH bleeds was noted in the andexanet alfa group. Trial Registration: Not applicable.

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.

Effect of common maintenance drugs on the risk and severity of COVID-19 in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance drugs are used to treat chronic conditions. Several classes of maintenance drugs have attracted attention because of their potential to affect susceptibility to and severity of COVID-19. METHODS: Using claims data on 20% random sample of Part D Medicare enrollees from April to December 2020, we identified patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Using a nested case-control design, non-COVID-19 controls were identified by 1:5 matching on age, race, sex, dual-eligibility status, and geographical region. We identified usage of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB), statins, warfarin, direct factor Xa inhibitors, P2Y12 inhibitors, famotidine and hydroxychloroquine based on Medicare prescription claims data. Using extended Cox regression models with time-varying propensity score adjustment we examined the independent effect of each study drug on contracting COVID-19. For severity of COVID-19, we performed extended Cox regressions on all COVID-19 patients, using COVID-19-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality as outcomes. Covariates included gender, age, race, geographic region, low-income indicator, and co-morbidities. To compensate for indication bias related to the use of hydroxychloroquine for the prophylaxis or treatment of COVID-19, we censored patients who only started on hydroxychloroquine in 2020. RESULTS: Up to December 2020, our sample contained 374,229 Medicare patients over 65 who were diagnosed with COVID-19. Among the COVID-19 patients, 278,912 (74.6%) were on at least one study drug. The three most common study drugs among COVID-19 patients were statins 187,374 (50.1%), ACEI 97,843 (26.2%) and ARB 83,290 (22.3%). For all three outcomes (diagnosis, hospitalization and death), current users of ACEI, ARB, statins, warfarin, direct factor Xa inhibitors and P2Y12 inhibitors were associated with reduced risks, compared to never users. Famotidine did not show consistent significant effects. Hydroxychloroquine did not show significant effects after censoring of recent starters. CONCLUSION: Maintenance use of ACEI, ARB, warfarin, statins, direct factor Xa inhibitors and P2Y12 inhibitors was associated with reduction in risk of acquiring COVID-19 and dying from it.

Notas técnicas para judicialização de anticoagulantes orais diretos: uma avaliação do perfil / Technical notes for judicialization of direct oral anticoagulants: a profile assessment

Fundamentos: A judicialização da saúde no Brasil gera aumento anual significativo das demandas por recursos financei-ros. Em 2016, com intuito de promover uma comunicação entre o sistema jurídico e o sistema de saúde, implementaram o sistema e-NatJus (Núcleos de Apoio Técnico do Poder Judiciário). A função do e-NatJus é fornecer apoio técnico aos juízes nas questões relativas à saúde por meio da elaboração de Notas Técnicas (NT). Objetivo: Analisar o perfil e a qualidade das NT de solicitação de anticoagulantes orais diretos (DOACs) disponíveis no portal eletrônico do e-NatJus para consultas por juízes. Métodos: Trata-se de um estudo documental descritivo, em que foram avaliadas as características sociodemo-gráficas, do diagnóstico e tratamento dos pacientes, bem como informações sobre as evidências da eficácia e segurança da tecnologia e conclusão de todas as NT referentes à solicitação de DOACs obtidas na plataforma e-NatJus desde sua im-plantação em 2018 até junho de 2020. Resultados: Foram incluídas no estudo 181 NT: rivaroxabana (67,0%), apixabana (16,0%), dabigatrana (12,0%) e edoxabana (5,0%). A média de idade dos indivíduos foi de 65,7 (±15,1) anos, sendo, (50,3%) do sexo feminino. São Sebastião do Paraíso foi o município que mais solicitou apoio nas NT (5,0%), e o estado com mais solicitações foi Santa Catarina (34,8%). Em relação ao diagnóstico dos pacientes, os mais prevalentes foram fibrilação atrial (FA)(31,5%) e troembolismo venoso (TEV)(16,4%). Aproximadamente 86 NT estavam com conteúdo semelhante no item evidência científica. Observou-se que (57,5%) tiveram a conclusão não favorável para disponibilizar o medicamento solicitado. Dentre as 77 NT que tiveram a conclusão favorável, (57,1%) não avaliaram as recomendações da Comissão Na-cional de Incorporação de Tecnologias (CONITEC). Conclusão: De forma geral, nosso estudo permitiu conhecer o perfil das NT e os principais motivos de solicitações dos DOACs, com intuito de compreender melhor se são realizadas realmente de forma consciente e responsável. A população que solicitou os DOACs via judicial é uma população idosa e não houve grande diferença entre os sexos. Os diagnósticos mais prevalentes nas NT foram FA e TEV corroborando com a indicação desses medicamentos. Pode-se observar que a maioria das NT que concedeu parecer favorável não evidenciou consulta à CONITEC e não apresentou evidência científica que contemplava de forma concreta sua decisão (AU)

Background: The judicialization of health in Brazil generates an annual increase in demands for financial resources. In 2016, to promote communication between the legal system and the health system, the implementation of e-NatJus system (Technical Support Centers of the Judiciary). The role of e-NatJus is to provide technical support to judges on health-related issues through the preparation of Technical Notes (NT). Objective: Analyze the profile and quality of TNs requesting Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) available on the e-NatJus electronic portal for consultation by judges. Methods: This is a descriptive documentary study, which evaluated the sociodemographic characteristics, diagnosis, and treatment of patients, as well as information on the evidence of the efficacy and safety of technology and the conclusion of all NT related to the request for DOACs obtained in the e-NatJus platform since its implementation in 2018 to June 24, 2020. Results: The study included 181 NT: rivaroxaban (67,0%), apixaban (16,0%), dabigatran (12,0%), and edoxaban (5,0%). The mean age of the individuals was 65.7 (±15.1) years, being (50,3%) female. São Sebastião do Paraíso was the municipality that most requested support in the NT (5,0%), and the state with the most requests was Santa Catarina (34,8%). Regarding the diagnosis, the most prevalent patients were AF (31,5%) and VTE (16,4%). Approximately 86 NT had similar content in the scientific evidence item. It was observed that (57,5%) had an unfavorable conclusion about making the requested drug available. Among the 77 NT that had a favorable conclusion, (57,1%) did not evaluate the rec-ommendations of the National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies (CONITEC). Conclusion: In general, our study is effective to know the profile of the NT and the main reasons for consulting DOACs, to better understand the form of knowledge and the DOACs. It can be observed that most NTs granted a favorable opinion, did not evidence CONITEC and did not present scientific evidence that contemplated the concrete form of their decision (AU)

Genetic-Guided Pharmacotherapy for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic and Critical Review of Economic Evaluations.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the extent and quality of evidence from economic evaluations (EEs) of genetic-guided pharmacotherapy (PGx) for atrial fibrillation (AF) and to identify variables influential in changing base-case conclusions. METHODS: From systematic searches, we included EEs of existing PGx testing to guide pharmacotherapy for AF, without restrictions on population characteristics or language. Articles excluded were genetic tests used to guide device-based therapy or focused on animals. RESULTS: We found 18 EEs (46 comparisons), all model-based cost-utility analysis with or without cost-effectiveness analysis mostly from health system's perspectives, of PGx testing to determine coumadin/direct-acting anticoagulant (DOAC) dosing (14 of 18), to stratify patients into coumadin/DOACs (3 of 18), or to increase patients' adherence to coumadin (1 of 18) versus non-PGx. Most PGx to determine coumadin dosing found PGx more costly and more effective than standard or clinical coumadin dosing (19 of 24 comparisons) but less costly and less effective than standard DOAC dosing (14 of 14 comparisons). The remaining comparisons were too few to observe any trend. Of 61 variables influential in changing base-case conclusions, effectiveness of PGx testing was the most common (37%), accounted for in the models using time-based or medication-based approaches or relative risk. The cost of PGx testing has decreased and plateaued over time. CONCLUSIONS: EEs to date only partially inform decisions on selecting optimal PGx testing for AF, because most evidence focuses on PGx testing to determine coumadin dosing, but less on other purposes. Future EE may refer to the list of influential variables and the approaches used to account for the effect of PGx testing to inform data collection and study design.

Impact of prior oral anticoagulant use and outcomes on patients from secondary analysis in the AUGUSTUS trial.

OBJECTIVE: Managing antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is challenging and can be affected by prior oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment. We examined the relationship between prior OAC use and outcomes in the AUGUSTUS trial. METHODS: This prespecified secondary analysis is from AUGUSTUS, an open-label, 2-by-2 factorial, RCT to evaluate the safety of apixaban versus vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and aspirin versus placebo in patients with AF and ACS and/or PCI. The primary endpoint, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding and clinical outcomes were compared in patients receiving (n=2262) or not receiving (n=2352) an OAC prior to enrolment. RESULTS: Patients with prior OAC use had more comorbidities, higher CHA2DS2-VASC and HAS-BLED scores, and were more likely enrolled following elective PCI. There was no difference in major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding with or without prior OAC (30 days: 5.1% vs 5.9% (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06); 180 days: 13.5% vs 13.5% (aHR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.16)). Patients with prior OAC use had a lower risk of death or ischaemic events (30 days: 1.7% vs 2.8% (aHR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.92); 180 days: 5.4% vs 7.6% (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.88)). No interactions between randomised treatment (apixaban vs VKA, aspirin vs placebo) and prior OAC status were observed for outcomes, apart from apixaban (vs VKA) being associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction with prior OAC use (180 days: 2.0% vs 3.7% (aHR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.91(). CONCLUSIONS: In AUGUSTUS, prior OAC use was associated with fewer ischaemic events but not more bleeding. In patients with AF and ACS and/or undergoing PCI, clinicians can be assured that the trial results can be applied to patients regardless of their prior OAC status. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02415400.