Cost-effectiveness analysis of rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in secondary prevention among patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone for patients with stable cardiovascular diseases in the Taiwan setting. METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to project the lifetime direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years of both therapies. Transitional probabilities were derived from the COMPASS trial, and the costs and utilities were obtained from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database and published studies. One-way, scenario, subgroup, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was presented as the outcome. The threshold of willingness-to-pay was set at US$76,368 (3 times the gross domestic product per capita of Taiwan). All analyses were operated by TreeAge 2019 and Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in the patients with stable cardiovascular diseases, coronary artery diseases, and peripheral artery diseases were US$83,459, US$69,852 and -US$13,823 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probabilities of cost-effectiveness for the regimen with rivaroxaban among those with cardiovascular diseases and coronary artery diseases were 44.1% and 65.3% at US$76,368. CONCLUSION: Low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is less likely to be a cost-effective alternative to aspirin in secondary prevention for the patients with stable cardiovascular diseases; however, among these patients, the regimen may have pharmacoeconomic incentives for the group merely having chronic coronary artery diseases from the Taiwan national payer's perspective. The pharmacoeconomic incentives are influenced by the drug price, event treatment fees, and willingness-to-pay threshold.

Burden of oral anticoagulation in embolic stroke of undetermined source without atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: Prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is challenging. The advent of safer anticoagulation in the form of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has prompted exploration of prophylactic anticoagulation for all ESUS patients, rather than anticoagulating just those with documented atrial fibrillation (AF). However, recent trials have failed to demonstrate a clinical benefit, while observing increased bleeding. We modeled the economic impact of anticoagulating ESUS patients without documented AF across multiple geographies. METHODS: CRYSTAL-AF trial data were used to assess ischaemic stroke event rates in ESUS patients confirmed AF-free after long-term monitoring. Anticipated bleeding event rates (including both minor and major bleeds) with aspirin, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg were sourced from published meta-analyses, whilst a 30% ischaemic stroke reduction for both DOACs was assumed. Cost data for clinical events and pharmaceuticals were collected from the local payer perspective. RESULTS: Compared with aspirin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban resulted in 17.9 and 29.9 additional bleeding events per 100 patients over a patient's lifetime, respectively. Despite incorporating into our model the proposed 30% reduction in ischaemic stroke risk, both DOACs were cost-additive over patient lifetime, as the costs of bleeding events and pharmaceuticals outweighed cost savings associated with the reduction in ischaemic strokes. DOACs added £5953-£7018 per patient (UK), €6683-€7368 (Netherlands), €4933-€9378 (Spain), AUD$5353-6539 (Australia) and $26,768-$32,259 (US) of payer cost depending on the agent prescribed. Additionally, in the U.S. patient pharmacy co-payments ranged from $2468-$12,844 depending on agent and patient plan. In all settings, cost-savings could not be demonstrated even when the modelling assumed 100% protection from recurrent ischaemic strokes, due to the very low underlying risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in this population (1.27 per 100 patient-years). CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation of non-AF patients may cause excess bleeds and add substantial costs for uncertain benefits, suggesting a personalised approach to anticoagulation in ESUS patients.

The Impact of the New Hypertension Guidelines to Low-Dose Aspirin Prophylaxis Eligibility for the Prevention of Preeclampsia: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) published new guidelines which lower the cut-off for hypertension. We sought to evaluate the impact of these guidelines to cost and benefit of various low-dose aspirin prophylaxis approaches. STUDY DESIGN: Decision tree analysis was created using R software to evaluate four approaches to aspirin prophylaxis in the United States: no aspirin, United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) with Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7) hypertension guidelines, USPSTF with ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines, as well as universal aspirin prophylaxis. This model was executed to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 4 million pregnant women in the United States. RESULTS: The new guidelines would expand the aspirin eligibility by 8% (76,953 women) in the USPSTF guidelines. Even with this increased eligibility, the USPSTF guidelines continue to be the approach with the most cost savings ($386.5 million) when compared with universal aspirin and no aspirin prophylaxis. The new hypertension guidelines are projected to increase the cost savings of the USPSTF approach by $9.4 million. CONCLUSION: Despite the small change in aspirin prophylaxis, using ACC/AHA definition of hypertension still results in an annual cost-saving of $9.4 million in the United States when compared with JNC7.

Cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention informed by real-world data.

Current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitors following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). CYP2C19 genotype can guide DAPT selection, prescribing ticagrelor or prasugrel for loss-of-function (LOF) allele carriers (genotype-guided escalation). Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are traditionally grounded in clinical trial data. We conduct a CEA using real-world data using a 1-year decision-analytic model comparing primary strategies: universal empiric clopidogrel (base case), universal ticagrelor, and genotype-guided escalation. We also explore secondary strategies commonly implemented in practice, wherein all patients are prescribed ticagrelor for 30 days post PCI. After 30 days, all patients are switched to clopidogrel irrespective of genotype (nonguided de-escalation) or to clopidogrel only if patients do not harbor an LOF allele (genotype-guided de-escalation). Compared with universal clopidogrel, both universal ticagrelor and genotype-guided escalation were superior with improvement in quality-adjusted life years (QALY's). Only genotype-guided escalation was cost-effective ($42,365/QALY) and demonstrated the highest probability of being cost-effective across conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. In the secondary analysis, compared with the nonguided de-escalation strategy, although genotype-guided de-escalation and universal ticagrelor were more effective, with ICER of $188,680/QALY and $678,215/QALY, respectively, they were not cost-effective. CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet prescribing is cost-effective compared with either universal clopidogrel or universal ticagrelor using real-world implementation data. The secondary analysis suggests genotype-guided and nonguided de-escalation may be viable strategies, needing further evaluation.

Modeling the cost effectiveness and budgetary impact of Polypills for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There is underutilization of appropriate medications for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Usual care (UC) was compared to polypill-based care with 3 versions using a validated micro-simulation model in the NHANES population with prior CVD. UC included individual prescription of up to 4 drug classes (antiplatelet agents, beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors and statins). The polypills modeled were aspirin 81 mg, atenolol 50 mg, ramipril 5 mg, and either simvastatin 40 mg (Polypill I), atorvastatin 80 mg (Polypill II), or rosuvastatin 40 mg (Polypill III). Baseline medication use and adherence came from United Healthcare claims data. RESULTS: When compared to UC, there were annual reductions of 130,000 to 178,000 myocardial infarctions and 54,000 to 74,000 strokes using Polypill I and II, respectively. From a health sector perspective, in incremental analysis the ICERs for Polypill I and II were $20,073/QALY and $21,818/QALY respectively; Polypill III was dominated but had a similar cost-effectiveness ratio to Polypill II when compared directly to usual care. From a societal perspective, Polypill II was cost-saving and dominated all strategies. Over a 5-year period, those taking Polypill I and II compared to UC saved approximately $12 and $6 per-patient-per-year alive, respectively. Polypill II was the preferred strategy in 98% of runs at a willingness to pay of $50,000 in the probability sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a polypill has a favorable cost profile for secondary CVD prevention in the United States. Reductions in CVD-related healthcare costs outweighed medication cost increases on a per-patient-per-year basis, suggesting that a polypill would be economically advantageous to both patients and payers.

European guidelines on perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: Aspirin.

: There is a good rationale for the use of aspirin in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in some orthopaedic procedures, as already proposed by the 9th American College of Chest Physicians' guidelines (Grade 1C). We recommend using aspirin, considering that it may be less effective than or as effective as low molecular weight heparin for prevention of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism after total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty and hip fracture surgery (Grade 1C). Aspirin may be less effective than or as effective as low molecular weight heparins for prevention of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism after other orthopaedic procedures (Grade 2C). Aspirin may be associated with a low rate of bleeding after total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty and hip fracture surgery (Grade 1B). Aspirin may be associated with less bleeding after total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty and hip fracture surgery than other pharmacological agents (Grade 1B). No data are available for other orthopaedic procedures. We do not recommend aspirin as thromboprophylaxis in general surgery (Grade 1C). However, this type of prophylaxis could be interesting especially in low-income countries (Grade 2C) and adequate large-scale trials with proper study designs should be carried out (Grade 1C).

Availability and affordability of cardiovascular disease medicines and their effect on use in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: an analysis of the PURE study data.

BACKGROUND: WHO has targeted that medicines to prevent recurrent cardiovascular disease be available in 80% of communities and used by 50% of eligible individuals by 2025. We have previously reported that use of these medicines is very low, but now aim to assess how such low use relates to their lack of availability or poor affordability. METHODS: We analysed information about availability and costs of cardiovascular disease medicines (aspirin, ß blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins) in pharmacies gathered from 596 communities in 18 countries participating in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. Medicines were considered available if present at the pharmacy when surveyed, and affordable if their combined cost was less than 20% of household capacity-to-pay. We compared results from high-income, upper middle-income, lower middle-income, and low-income countries. Data from India were presented separately given its large, generic pharmaceutical industry. FINDINGS: Communities were recruited between Jan 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2013. All four cardiovascular disease medicines were available in 61 (95%) of 64 urban and 27 (90%) of 30 rural communities in high-income countries, 53 (80%) of 66 urban and 43 (73%) of 59 rural communities in upper middle-income countries, 69 (62%) of 111 urban and 42 (37%) of 114 rural communities in lower middle-income countries, eight (25%) of 32 urban and one (3%) of 30 rural communities in low-income countries (excluding India), and 34 (89%) of 38 urban and 42 (81%) of 52 rural communities in India. The four cardiovascular disease medicines were potentially unaffordable for 0·14% of households in high-income countries (14 of 9934 households), 25% of upper middle-income countries (6299 of 24,776), 33% of lower middle-income countries (13,253 of 40,023), 60% of low-income countries (excluding India; 1976 of 3312), and 59% households in India (9939 of 16,874). In low-income and middle-income countries, patients with previous cardiovascular disease were less likely to use all four medicines if fewer than four were available (odds ratio [OR] 0·16, 95% CI 0·04-0·57). In communities in which all four medicines were available, patients were less likely to use medicines if the household potentially could not afford them (0·16, 0·04-0·55). INTERPRETATION: Secondary prevention medicines are unavailable and unaffordable for a large proportion of communities and households in upper middle-income, lower middle-income, and low-income countries, which have very low use of these medicines. Improvements to the availability and affordability of key medicines is likely to enhance their use and help towards achieving WHO's targets of 50% use of key medicines by 2025. FUNDING: Population Health Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, AstraZeneca (Canada), Sanofi-Aventis (France and Canada), Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany and Canada), Servier, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, King Pharma, and national or local organisations in participating countries.

Low dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm labour - the APRIL study: a multicenter randomized placebo controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth (birth before 37 weeks of gestation) is a major problem in obstetrics and affects an estimated 15 million pregnancies worldwide annually. A history of previous preterm birth is the strongest risk factor for preterm birth, and recurrent spontaneous preterm birth affects more than 2.5 million pregnancies each year. A recent meta-analysis showed possible benefits of the use of low dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth. We will assess the (cost-)effectiveness of low dose aspirin in comparison with placebo in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth in a randomized clinical trial. METHODS/DESIGN: Women with a singleton pregnancy and a history of spontaneous preterm birth in a singleton pregnancy (22-37 weeks of gestation) will be asked to participate in a multicenter, randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled trial. Women will be randomized to low dose aspirin (80 mg once daily) or placebo, initiated from 8 to 16 weeks up to maximal 36 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome measure will be preterm birth, defined as birth at a gestational age (GA) < 37 weeks. Secondary outcomes will be a composite of adverse neonatal outcome and maternal outcomes, including subgroups of prematurity, as well as intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and costs from a healthcare perspective. Preterm birth will be analyzed as a group, as well as separately for spontaneous or indicated onset. Analysis will be performed by intention to treat. In total, 406 pregnant women have to be randomized to show a reduction of 35% in preterm birth from 36 to 23%. If aspirin is effective in preventing preterm birth, we expect that there will be cost savings, because of the low costs of aspirin. To evaluate this, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing preventive treatment with aspirin with placebo. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence as to whether or not low dose aspirin is (cost-) effective in reducing recurrence of spontaneous preterm birth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration number of the Dutch Trial Register: NTR 5675 . EudraCT-registration number: 2015-003220-31.

The Cost Differential Between Warfarin Versus Aspirin Treatment After a Fontan Procedure.

BACKGROUND: The use of aspirin versus warfarin for treatment of patients after a Fontan procedure remains contentious. Current preference-based models of treatment across Australia and New Zealand show variation in care that is unlikely to reflect patient differences and/or clinical risk. METHODS: We combine data from the Australian and New Zealand Fontan Registry and a home INR (International Normalised Ratio) monitoring program (HINRMP) from the Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) Melbourne, to estimate the cost difference for Fontan recipients receiving aspirin versus warfarin for 2015. We adopt a societal perspective to costing which includes cost to the health system (e.g. medical consults, pathology tests) and costs to patients and carers (e.g. travel and time), but excludes costs of adverse events. Costs are presented in Australian 2015 dollars; any costs from previous years have been inflated using appropriate rates from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. RESULTS: We find that warfarin patients face additional costs of $825 per annum, with the majority ($584 or 71%) of those borne by the patient or family. If aspirin is as clinically as effective as warfarin, Fontan recipients could be enjoying far less costly, invasive and time-consuming treatment. While achieving such clinical consensus can be difficult, economics shows us that there are large costs associated with a failure to achieve it.

Cost effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device for atrial fibrillation patients with absolute contraindications to warfarin.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation have had few options for stroke prevention. Recently, a novel oral anticoagulant, apixaban, and percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) have emerged as safe and effective therapies for stroke risk reduction in these patients. This analysis assessed the cost effectiveness of LAAC with the Watchman device relative to apixaban and aspirin therapy in patients with non-valvular AF and contraindications to warfarin therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cost-effectiveness model was constructed using data from three studies on stroke prevention in patients with contraindications: the ASAP study evaluating the Watchman device, the ACTIVE A trial of aspirin and clopidogrel, and the AVERROES trial evaluating apixaban. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a German healthcare payer perspective over a 20-year time horizon. Left atrial appendage closure yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than aspirin and apixaban by 2 and 4 years, respectively. At 5 years, LAAC was cost effective compared with aspirin with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €16 971. Left atrial appendage closure was cost effective compared with apixaban at 7 years with an ICER of €9040. Left atrial appendage closure was cost saving and more effective than aspirin and apixaban at 8 years and remained so throughout the 20-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that LAAC with the Watchman device is a cost-effective and cost-saving solution for stroke risk reduction in patients with non-valvular AF who are at risk for stroke but have contraindications to warfarin.

Cost-effectiveness of medical primary prevention strategies to reduce absolute risk of cardiovascular disease in Tanzania: a Markov modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a growing cause of mortality and morbidity in Tanzania, but contextualized evidence on cost-effective medical strategies to prevent it is scarce. We aim to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of medical interventions for primary prevention of CVD using the World Health Organization's (WHO) absolute risk approach for four risk levels. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective using two Markov decision models: CVD risk without diabetes and CVD risk with diabetes. Primary provider and patient costs were estimated using the ingredients approach and step-down methodologies. Epidemiological data and efficacy inputs were derived from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We used disability- adjusted life years (DALYs) averted as the outcome measure. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: For CVD low-risk patients without diabetes, medical management is not cost-effective unless willingness to pay (WTP) is higher than US$1327 per DALY averted. For moderate-risk patients, WTP must exceed US$164 per DALY before a combination of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and diuretic (Diu) becomes cost-effective, while for high-risk and very high-risk patients the thresholds are US$349 (ACEI, calcium channel blocker (CCB) and Diu) and US$498 per DALY (ACEI, CCB, Diu and Aspirin (ASA)) respectively. For patients with CVD risk with diabetes, a combination of sulfonylureas (Sulf), ACEI and CCB for low and moderate risk (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) US$608 and US$115 per DALY respectively), is the most cost-effective, while adding biguanide (Big) to this combination yielded the most favourable ICERs of US$309 and US$350 per DALY for high and very high risk respectively. For the latter, ASA is also part of the combination. CONCLUSIONS: Medical preventive cardiology is very cost-effective for all risk levels except low CVD risk. Budget impact analyses and distributional concerns should be considered further to assess governments' ability and to whom these benefits will accrue.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of apixaban versus acetylsalicylic acid in the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Spain]. / Análisis coste-utilidad de apixabán frente al ácido acetilsalicílico en la prevención del ictus en pacientes con fibrilación auricular no valvular en España.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) with contraindications of vitamin K antagonists in Spain. METHODS: A Markov model was adapted, simulating the patient's lifetime. The safety and efficacy of the drugs were obtained from AVERROES clinical trial. The analysis was done from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) and societal perspective. The cost of drugs was calculated according to the recommended doses. The cost of NVAF complications and disease management was obtained from Spanish sources. RESULTS: In a cohort of 1,000 patients with NVAF, during their lifetime numerous complications could be avoided with apixaban versus ASA (48 ischemic strokes, 10 systemic embolism and 53 related deaths). In each patient treated with apixaban more life-years (0.303 LYG) and more quality-adjusted life-years (0.277 QALYs) could be gained. Apixaban would generate more costs per patient for the NHS (€1,742 per patient) but savings would result from the social perspective (€2,887 saved per patient). The cost per LYG and QALY gained would be of €5,749 and €6,289 for the NHS. Apixaban would be dominant (more effective with less costs than ASA) from the societal perspective. The results were stable in both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: According to this model, when costs and estimated lifetime outcomes achieved with apixaban are compared with those of ASA, apixaban was assessed to be a cost-effective treatment for the prevention of stroke in patients with NVAF in Spain.

[Budget impact analysis of antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome after coronary artery bypass surgery]. / Analiz «vliyaniya na byudzhet¼ primeneniya antitrombotsitarnoi terapii tikagrelorom i klopidogrelom u patsientov s ostrym koronarnym sindromom, perenesshikh operatsiyu koronarnogo shuntirovaniya.

AIM: Clinical and economic examinations were made to study whether it is appropriate to use antiplatelet therapy (APT) with ticagrelor in combination with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus a combination of clopidogrel and ASA in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) following coronary artery bypass surgery (CABS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A budget impact analysis was used. Data on the efficiency and safety of APT were taken from a relevant analysis in the subgroups of the randomized controlled trial PLATO. Direct medical cost due to APT and expenses on therapy for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and massive bleeding, and those on medical care for patients dying from cardiovascular events and other causes, as well as indirect cost - gross domestic product (GDP) losses due to untimely death, were taken into account. The findings were assessed from the perspectives of society. RESULTS: The analysis indicated that direct medical costs per patient following CABS, both in case of calculation based on the recorded price for ticagrelor and on the median registered prices for clopidogrel generics, and based on the auction prices for comparison agents proved to be lower when clopidogrel was administered because of the higher cost of ticagrelor-based APT. At the same time GDP losses due to untimely death, as calculated per patient with ACS during post-CABS therapy with clopidogrel + ASA, were more than twice above average losses per patient taking ticagrelor in combination with ACA (107,122 and 221,645 rubles, respectively). From the registered price for ticagrelor and the median registered prices for clopidogrel generics, the total costs per patient with ACS following CABS were lower if Brilinta was used in combination with ASA versus therapy with clopidogrel in combination with ASA (210,092 and 273,257 rubles per year, respectively; the cost savings were 63,165 rubles per patient per year when ticagrelor was administered). On the basis of the auction prices for comparison drugs, the total costs per patient with ACS after CABS proved to be lower if Brilinta was used in combination with ASA versus therapy with brand name clopidogrel in combination with ASA (201,018 and 293,982 rubles per patients year, respectively; the cost savings were 92,963 rubles per patient per year when ticagrelor was used). CONCLUSION: The use of ticagrelor in combination with ASA ensures resource savings to treat ACS patients undergoing CABS as compared with a regiment including a combination of clopidogrel and ASA.

Clinical and Economic Implications of Apixaban Versus Aspirin in the Low-Risk Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although recommended by guidelines, the benefits of treating patients with atrial fibrillation with a low-stroke risk score, with aspirin or anticoagulants, have not been clearly established. With advent of safer non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant, we assessed the clinical and economic implications of 5 mg BID of apixaban versus aspirin among patients with a relative low risk of stroke as assessed using the CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age>75, diabetes mellitus, stroke/transient ischemic attack) and CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes mellitus, stroke/transient ischemic attack, vascular disease) stroke risk classification. METHODS: A previously developed and validated Markov model was adapted. A secondary analysis of the Apixaban Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid to Prevent Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Who Have Failed or Are Unsuitable for Vitamin K Antagonist Treatment (AVERROES) study was conducted to estimate event rates in different low-risk cohorts by treatment. Three cohorts (n=1000) with a CHADS2 score of 1, CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1, and CHA2DS2-VASc of score 2 to 4 were simulated to assess the number of clinical events avoided in terms of strokes and major bleeds, as well as life years gained, quality-adjusted life years gained, costs, and incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year gained. RESULTS: Apixaban was associated with fewer strokes and systemic embolism versus aspirin across all subgroups; however, it caused more major bleeding events. The reduction in systemic embolism offset the increase in major bleeding events leading to increased life expectancy and quality-adjusted life year gains, achieved at an increased cost that was lower than the UK threshold of $44,400 (ie, £30,000) per quality-adjusted life year gained across the 3 cohorts examined. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulant treatment with apixaban versus aspirin in low-risk patients, as identified using CHADS2 or CHA2DS2-VASc, is projected to increase life expectancy and provide clinical benefits that are cost effective.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban vs. current standard of care for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), has been the standard of care for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Aspirin is recommended for low-risk patients and those unsuitable for warfarin. Apixaban is an oral anticoagulant that has demonstrated better efficacy than warfarin and aspirin in the ARISTOTLE and AVERROES studies, respectively, and causes less bleeding than warfarin. We evaluated the potential cost-effectiveness of apixaban against warfarin and aspirin from the perspective of the UK payer perspective. RESULTS AND METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic impact of apixaban compared with warfarin and aspirin in VKA suitable and VKA unsuitable patients, respectively. Clinical events considered in the model include ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, other major bleed, clinically relevant non-major bleed, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospitalization and treatment discontinuations; data from the ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials and published mortality rates and event-related utility rates were used in the model. Apixaban was projected to increase life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with warfarin and aspirin. These gains were expected to be achieved at a drug acquisition-related cost increase over lifetime. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £11 909 and £7196 per QALY gained with apixaban compared with warfarin and aspirin, respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust to a wide range of inputs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on randomized trial data, apixaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin and aspirin, in VKA suitable and VKA unsuitable patients with AF, respectively.

Direct Costs of Aspirin versus Warfarin for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis after Total Knee or Hip Arthroplasty.

Interest in aspirin as an alternative strategy for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after arthroplasty has grown, as studies have suggested improved clinical efficacy and lower complication rates with aspirin compared to warfarin. The goal of this study was to compare the direct costs of an episode of arthroplasty care, when using aspirin instead of warfarin. The charts of patients who either received aspirin or warfarin after arthroplasty from January 2008 to March 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Charges were recorded for their index admission, and for subsequent admissions related to either VTE or complications of prophylaxis. Multivariate analysis revealed that aspirin was an independent predictor of decreased cost of index hospitalization, and total episode of care charges, achieved largely through a shorter length of hospitalization.

Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in a health resource-limited setting.

PURPOSE: To compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of five alternative chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) management strategies: rivaroxaban, warfarin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, aspirin and no prevention. METHODS: An individual-level state-transition model was developed to track the lifetime disease course associated with AF. The clinical and utility data were derived from published studies. The cost data were estimated based on local charges and current Chinese practices. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty on the results. RESULTS: For base-case patients with a CHADS2 score of 3, the cost per additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained for rivaroxaban compared with no prevention, aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel and warfarin was $116,884, $153,944, $155,979 and $216,273, respectively. CHADS2 score had a substantial impact on the model outcomes for different prevention strategies. The time distribution of warfarin international normalised ratio (INR), stroke and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) risks, cost of rivaroxaban and utility of warfarin therapy had substantial impacts on the results. Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $16,350/QALY, no prevention strategy was the preferred therapy for a patient with a low risk for stroke and a high risk for ICH; aspirin was preferred for patients with a moderate risk for stroke and ICH; and warfarin was preferred for patients with a high risk for stroke and a low risk of ICH. CONCLUSION: In the context of limited health resources, rivaroxaban is unlikely to be cost-effective, although it provided more health benefits comparing with other strategies. Additionally, warfarin with good INR control might be more suitable for AF patients in developing regions.

An economic case for a cardiovascular polypill? A cost analysis of the Kanyini GAP trial.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the costs of a polypill strategy and compare them with those of usual care in people with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or at similarly high cardiovascular risk. DESIGN: A within-trial cost analysis of polypill-based care versus usual care with separate medications, using data from the Kanyini Guidelines Adherence with the Polypill (GAP) trial and linked health service and medication administrative claims data. PARTICIPANTS: Kanyini GAP participants who consented to Australian Medicare record access. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean health service and pharmaceutical expenditure per patient per year, estimated with generalised linear models. Costs during the trial (randomisation January 2010 - May 2012, median follow-up 19 months, maximum follow-up 36 months) were inflated to 2012 costs. RESULTS: Our analysis showed a statistically significantly lower mean pharmaceutical expenditure of $989 (95% CI, $648-$1331) per patient per year in the polypill arm compared with usual care (P < 0.001; adjusted, excluding polypill cost). No significant difference was shown in health service expenditure. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of significant cost savings to the taxpayer and Australian Government through the introduction of a CVD polypill strategy. The savings will be less now than during the trial due to subsequent reductions in the costs of usual care. Nonetheless, given the prevalence of CVD in Australia, the introduction of this polypill could increase considerably the efficiency of health care expenditure in Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN126080005833347.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of enoxaparin versus aspirin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee arthroplasty: an analysis from the CRISTAL cluster-randomized trial.

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the healthcare costs and benefits of enoxaparin compared to aspirin in the prevention of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using data from the CRISTAL trial. Methods: This trial-based economic analysis reports value for money as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in 2022 Australian dollars, compared to a single threshold value of AUD$70,000 per QALY. Event costs were estimated based on occurrence of VTEs and bleeds, and on published guidelines for treatment. Unit costs were taken from Australian sources. QALYs were estimated using CRISTAL six-month follow-up data. Sensitivity analyses are presented that vary the cost of VTE treatment, and extend the analyses to two years. Results: The CRISTAL trial found that enoxaparin was more effective than aspirin in preventing symptomatic VTE within 90 days of THA or TKA (risk difference 1.97% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54% to 3.41%; p = 0.007)). The additional cost after a THA or TKA was AUD$83 (95% CI 68 to 97) for enoxaparin, and enoxaparin resulted in an additional 0.002 QALYs (95% CI -0.002 to 0.005). Incremental cost per QALY gained was AUD$50,567 (95% CI 15,513, dominated) for enoxaparin. We can be 60% confident that the incremental cost per QALY does not exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD$70,000. Increasing the cost of VTE treatment and extension of costs and consequences to two years suggested greater confidence that enoxaparin is good value for money (70% and 63% confidence, respectively). Conclusion: This analysis provides strong evidence that enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis following THA or TKA reduced VTEs, but weak evidence of net economic benefits over aspirin. If the value of avoiding VTEs is high, and there is a strong likelihood of VTE-related health impairments, we can be more confident that enoxaparin is cost-effective compared to aspirin.