Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin plus a vitamin K antagonist for the treatment of venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprised of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is commonly treated with a low-molecular-weight heparin such as enoxaparin plus a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to prevent recurrence. Administration of enoxaparin + VKA is hampered by complexities of laboratory monitoring and frequent dose adjustments. Rivaroxaban, an orally administered anticoagulant, has been compared with enoxaparin + VKA in the EINSTEIN trials. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin + VKA as anticoagulation treatment for acute, symptomatic, objectively-confirmed DVT or PE. METHODS: A Markov model was built to evaluate the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios associated with rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin + VKA in adult patients treated for acute DVT or PE. All patients entered the model in the 'on-treatment' state upon commencement of oral rivaroxaban or enoxaparin + VKA for 3, 6, or 12 months. Transition probabilities were obtained from the EINSTEIN trials during treatment and published literature after treatment. A 3-month cycle length, US payer perspective ($2012), 5-year time horizon and a 3% annual discount rate were used. RESULTS: Treatment with rivaroxaban cost $2,448 per-patient less and was associated with 0.0058 more QALYs compared with enoxaparin + VKA, making it a dominant economic strategy. Upon one-way sensitivity analysis, the model's results were sensitive to the reduction in index VTE hospitalization length-of-stay associated with rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin + VKA. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed rivaroxaban to be cost-effective compared with enoxaparin + VKA approximately 76% of the time. LIMITATIONS: The model did not account for the benefits associated with an oral and minimally invasive administration of rivaroxaban. 'Real-world' applicability is limited because data from the EINSTEIN trials were used in the model. Also, resource utilization and costs were based on the US healthcare system. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban is a cost-effective option for anticoagulation treatment of acute VTE patients.

Safety and treatment patterns of angiogenesis inhibitors in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: evidence from US community oncology clinics.

Safety and treatment patterns of sunitinib and sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) had been previously reported using retrospective chart review of patients treated in US tertiary centers. Because practice patterns may vary between hospital- and office-based settings, this study examined safety and treatment patterns of these agents in US community oncology clinics. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for 250 patients with mRCC treated at 18 community oncology clinics. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old and received ≥1 prescription for sunitinib (n = 131) or sorafenib (n = 119) as first-line anti-angiogenic treatment. Rates of adverse events (AEs) and treatment modifications were analyzed; reasons for treatment modifications were examined. Median duration of first-line sunitinib and sorafenib treatment was 5.9 and 5.5 months, respectively. Among patients treated with sunitinib and sorafenib, 86% (30%) and 87% (28%), respectively, experienced ≥1 all-grade (grade 3/4) AE. The most common AEs were fatigue/weakness in sunitinib (all-grade: 42%; grade 3/4: 5%) and skin rash in sorafenib (all-grade: 35%; grade 3/4: 6%). Sixty-two and 64% of patients treated with sunitinib and sorafenib, respectively, had ≥1 treatment modification due to AEs. Recorded AE rates in patients with mRCC treated with angiogenesis inhibitors in community practice tended to be lower than in tertiary centers, possibly due to shorter treatment duration. Rates of treatment modifications due to AEs tended to be higher in community practice. This study provides evidence from an office-based setting of unmet need for agents that may provide improved tolerability in mRCC.

Risk-benefit analysis of adalimumab versus traditional non-biologic therapies for patients with Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab is indicated for the treatment of moderately to severely active Crohn's disease (CD). A systematic analysis of risks and benefits of adalimumab versus traditional non-biologic therapies for patients refractory to non-biologic therapy is lacking. METHODS: A base-case analysis compared expected benefits of adalimumab therapy with a 12-week stopping rule for non-responders versus non-biologic therapies using data from clinical trials (CHARM, CLASSIC I). Adverse events (AEs) recorded in clinical trials (CHARM, CLASSIC I, CLASSIC II, GAIN, open-label extensions) were compiled. Sensitivity analyses incorporated all observed benefits of adalimumab and placebo (CHARM, CLASSIC I, GAIN) and observed AEs from a systematic literature review of non-biologic therapies (MEDLINE search of randomized trials 1990-2007). Distributional information from maintenance clinical trial observations and benefit model predictions were used in a probabilistic simulation. Incremental net benefits were estimated based on utility estimates from the literature. RESULTS: Average time in remission (i.e., CDAI <150) over 1 year of therapy was 39.9% for adalimumab versus 6.6% for traditional non-biologic therapies. Adalimumab was associated with fewer expected hospitalizations, better fistula closure rates, and lower AE rates. These findings were robust in sensitivity analyses. In the probabilistic simulation, with serious AEs as a composite of risks, adalimumab provided greater benefits with fewer AEs versus non-biologic therapies (P < 0.01). Adalimumab demonstrated greater incremental net quality-adjusted life-years (0.12) versus non-biologic therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab demonstrated greater benefits and lower rates of AEs versus traditional non-biologic therapies for patients with moderately to severely active CD who were refractory to non-biologic therapies.

Treatment of transfusional iron overload in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome or severe anemia: data from multicenter clinical practices.

BACKGROUND: Patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or severe anemia requiring repeated red blood cell (RBC) transfusions risk developing transfusional iron overload, which can reduce survival. Iron chelation therapy (ICT) has been shown to improve survival and quality of life in patients; however, ICT utilization in clinical practices is not well understood. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Medical records of patients diagnosed with MDS or severe anemia at least 6 months before data extraction, aged at least 21 years at diagnosis, and who received at least one RBC transfusion were reviewed. ICT eligibility was defined as at least 20 units of RBCs transfused or at least two serum ferritin levels exceeding 1000 microg/L. Study endpoint was ICT treatment rate among ICT-eligible patients with lower-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System [low or intermediate-1]; World Health Organization [refractory anemia {RA}, refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts {RARS}, refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia {RCMD}, refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia and ringed sideroblasts, or 5q]; French-American-British [RA/RARS]). RESULTS: Among 78 ICT-eligible patients with lower-risk MDS, 32 (41%) received ICT. At ICT initiation, treated patients received on average 13.3 transfusions (27.6 units) and mean first post-ICT initiation serum ferritin was twice the MDS Foundation recommendation at 1949 microg/L. Median overall survival for all ICT-eligible patients was significantly longer for those ICT-treated patients than untreated patients (8.7 years vs. 4.7 years, log-rank p = 0.02; multivariate hazard ratio 0.372, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This study finds only 41% of ICT-eligible patients with lower-risk MDS received ICT in clinical practice, and treatment was initiated later than recommended. Receipt of ICT was associated with significantly longer survival.