Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus apixaban for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism and extended prevention of recurrences in the UK.

Aim: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of using rivaroxaban vs apixaban for the initial treatment plus extended prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the UK. Extended prevention was assessed using a 10-mg rivaroxaban dose, as the 20-mg dose has already been evaluated. Methods: A Markov model compared the health outcomes and costs of treating VTE patient cohorts with either rivaroxaban (15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, followed by 20 mg once daily for 6 months, then extended prevention with 10 mg once daily) or apixaban (10 mg twice daily for 1 week, followed by 5 mg twice daily for 6 months, then extended prevention with 2.5 mg twice daily) over a lifetime horizon. The model included an initial acute treatment and prevention phase (0-6 months) and an extended prevention phase (6-18 months). Efficacy and safety data were derived from two network meta-analyses. Reference treatment comparators were derived from the EINSTEIN-Pooled study and EINSTEIN-CHOICE trial. Healthcare costs and utility data were derived from published literature. Results: The rivaroxaban regimen was associated with increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and slightly lower total costs compared with apixaban over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that rivaroxaban remained a cost-effective alternative to apixaban over a wide range of parameters. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were below the £20,000 per QALY threshold in 74.1% of 2,000 model simulations. Scenario analyses further supported that rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to apixaban. Limitations: Clinical and safety inputs were derived from network meta-analysis, which are subject to inherent limitations whereby small differences between study designs may severely impact efficacy and safety outcomes. Furthermore, these inputs were based on data from clinical trials, which may not reflect real-world data. Conclusions: Rivaroxaban was associated with a slightly lower total cost and increased QALYs compared with apixaban for VTE management in the UK over a lifetime horizon.

A VELOUR post hoc subset analysis: prognostic groups and treatment outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with aflibercept and FOLFIRI.

BACKGROUND: The VELOUR study demonstrated a survival benefit for FOLFIRI + aflibercept versus FOLFIRI + placebo in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who progressed on oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Continued divergence of overall survival (OS) curves in the intension to treat (ITT) population, with the survival advantage persisting beyond median survival time, suggested subpopulations might have different magnitudes of survival gain. Additionally, 10% of patients within VELOUR had recurrence during or within 6 months of completing oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy (adjuvant fast relapsers)--previously identified as having poorer survival outcomes. METHODS: To determine which patients received the greatest benefit from FOLFIRI-aflibercept, a post hoc multivariate analysis of the VELOUR ITT population was conducted. Prognostic factors identified were applied to the ITT population, excluding adjuvant fast relapsers, to derive OS prognostic profiles. RESULTS: The better efficacy subgroup was identified as patients within VELOUR exclusive of adjuvant fast relapsers and had performance status (PS) 0 with any number of metastatic site or PS 1 with <2 metastatic site. A significant improvement in efficacy outcome was observed with aflibercept in the better efficacy subgroup. Median OS for FOLFIRI-aflibercept and FOLFIRI-placebo:16.2 and 13.1 months (adjusted Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.86); median progression free survival (PFS): 7.2 and 4.8 months (adjusted HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.57-0.80); and objective response rate (ORR): 24% versus 11% respectively. Poorer efficacy subgroup comprised of adjuvant fast relapsers or patients with PS2 or PS1 with ≥ 2 metastatic sites. In poorer efficacy subgroup, no benefit was seen with aflibercept. Median OS for FOLFIRI-aflibercept and FOLFIRI-placebo: 10.4 and 9.6 months (adjusted HR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.78-1.21) respectively with no improvement in PFS or ORR. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that within VELOUR, patients in the better efficacy subgroup may derive enhanced benefit from treatment with FOLFIRI-aflibercept. These prognostic criteria may guide practitioners toward optimal use of targeted biologicals in appropriate second-line mCRC patients.