Overall Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban in Patients with Pulmonary Embolism.

PURPOSE: Due to limited evidence on the impact of rivaroxaban in clinical practice, we compared the effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus standard of care (SOC) among patients in the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: Adult patients with continuous enrollment in a health plan with medical and pharmacy benefits for ≥12 months before and ≥3 months after an inpatient diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) between October 1, 2011, and June 30, 2015, and a prescription claim for an anticoagulant during the index hospitalization, were included. SOC drugs were low-molecular-weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, and warfarin. Propensity score matching was used in comparing PE-related outcomes (recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and death), hospital-acquired complications (HACs), health care resource utilization, and costs among patients receiving SOC versus rivaroxaban. We defined net clinical benefit as 1 minus the combined rate of PE-related outcomes and HACs. FINDINGS: Among 6746 patients with PE, 208 received rivaroxaban, 4641 received SOC and 1897 received other anticoagulants. Most (95%) were male; 22% were black. After 1:3 propensity score matching, there were 203 rivaroxaban and 609 SOC patients. During the 90-day follow-up, rivaroxaban users had similar rates of PE-related outcomes, but fewer had experienced at least 1 HAC (10.3% vs 15.9%; P = 0.0506), resulting in better net clinical benefit (82.8% vs 71.1%; P = 0.001). Rivaroxaban users had fewer outpatient visits per patient (17.0 vs 19.9; P = 0.0005), a similar rehospitalization rate (0.2 vs 0.3; P = 0.084), lesser inpatient costs (US $3501 vs $6189; P < 0.0001), lesser inpatient costs and lesser total costs ($10,545 vs $14,192; P = 0.0002). When the sample was limited to patients with low-risk PE, we found similar patterns. IMPLICATIONS: Patients with PE prescribed rivaroxaban had similar PE-related outcomes, but fewer HACs and lesser total costs, than did patients on SOC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban for Treatment of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism in Greece.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprising deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major healthcare concern that results in substantial morbidity and mortality with great economic burden for healthcare systems. Hence, the need for effective and efficient treatment of patients with VTE is important for both clinical and economic reasons. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared to standard of care (SoC) with enoxaparin followed by dose-adjusted vitamin-K antagonists for the treatment of DVT and PE in Greece. METHODS: An existing Markov model was locally adapted from a third-party payer perspective to reflect the management and complications of DVT and PE in the course of 3-month cycles, up to death. The clinical inputs and utility values were extracted from published studies. Direct medical costs, obtained from local resources, were incorporated in the model and refer to year 2017. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was carried out to deal with uncertainty. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that rivaroxaban in 3- and 6-month treatment duration for DVT and PE, respectively, as this is the common clinical practice in Greece, was associated with a 0.02 and 0.01 increment in QALYs compared to SoC, respectively. Rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced total cost in DVT (€85) but with an additional total cost in PE (€2) compared to SoC. Therefore, rivaroxaban was a dominant (less costly, more effective) and cost-effective (ICER: €177) alternative over SoC for the management of DVT and PE, respectively. PSA revealed that the probability of rivaroxaban being cost effective at a threshold of €34,000 per QALY gained was 99% and 81% for DVT and PE, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban may represent a cost-effective option relative to SoC for the management of DVT and PE in Greece.

Is Rivaroxaban Associated With Shorter Hospital Stays and Reduced Costs Versus Parenteral Bridging to Warfarin Among Patients With Pulmonary Embolism?

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the length of stay (LOS) and total costs for patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) treated with either rivaroxaban or parenterally bridged warfarin. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis was performed in the Premier Database from November 2012 to March 2015. Adult patients were included if they had a hospital encounter for PE (an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code = 415.1×) in the primary position, a claim for ≥1 diagnostic test for PE on day 0 to 2, and initiated rivaroxaban or parenteral anticoagulation/warfarin. Rivaroxaban users (allowing ≤2 days of prior parenteral therapy) were 1:1 propensity score matched to patients receiving parenterally bridged warfarin. Length of stay, total costs, and readmission for venous thromboembolism (VTE) or major bleeding during the same or subsequent 2 months following the index event were compared between cohorts. Analysis restricted to patients with low-risk PE was also performed. RESULTS: Characteristics of the matched PE cohorts (n = 3466 per treatment) were well balanced. Rivaroxaban use was associated with a 1.36-day shorter LOS and $2304 reduction in total costs compared to parenterally bridged warfarin ( P < .001 for both). Rates of readmission for VTE were similar between cohorts (1.7% vs 1.6%; P = .64). No difference was observed between treatments for readmission for major bleeding (0.2% vs 0.2%; P > .99). In analyses restricted to low-risk patients (n = 1551 per treatment), rivaroxaban was associated with a 1.01-day and a $1855 reduction in LOS and costs, respectively ( P < .001 for both). Rates of readmission were again similar between treatments ( P > .56 for all). CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban significantly reduced hospital LOS and costs compared to parenterally bridged warfarin, without increasing the risk of readmission.

Rivaroxaban versus Heparin Bridging to Warfarin Therapy: Impact on Hospital Length of Stay and Treatment Costs for Low-Risk Patients with Pulmonary Embolism.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare hospital length of stay (LOS) and hospital treatment costs in low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) anticoagulated with rivaroxaban or heparin bridging to warfarin therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective review of electronic health records and hospital billing records. SETTING: Large, teaching hospital in the northeastern United States. PATIENTS: One hundred ninety adults with objectively confirmed acute PE presenting to the emergency department between November 1, 2012, and May, 12, 2015, who were classified as low risk of early mortality and received anticoagulation with either rivaroxaban or heparin (i.e., unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin) bridging to warfarin therapy were included in the analysis. Patients were identified as low risk by at least one of the following prediction rules: simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI; 115 patients), Hestia criteria (87 patients), or In-hospital Mortality for Pulmonary Embolism using Claims Data (IMPACT; 108 patients); these were not mutually exclusive, as patients could be classified as low risk by more than one risk stratification tool. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We divided low-risk patients identified by each prediction rule into two cohorts: those receiving rivaroxaban (allowing ≤ 2 days of prior heparin use) or heparin bridging to warfarin therapy. The primary end points for this study were LOS (number of days from the patient's arrival at our institution until discharge) and total hospital treatment costs (our institution's actual costs to provide treatment) for the index PE hospital encounter. Using multivariable generalized linear model regression (gamma-distributed error and log-link), we estimated differences in LOS and hospital costs (in 2015 U.S. dollars) between the two cohorts after covariate adjustment. Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly shorter adjusted LOS (range -2.1 to -4.3 days) and significantly lower index hospital costs (range -$3835 to -$7094) versus heparin bridging to warfarin, regardless of the prediction rule used to identify low-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Among low-risk PE patients identified by using sPESI, Hestia or IMPACT, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly shorter LOS and lower hospital treatment costs versus heparin bridging to warfarin.

Hospitalizations and Other Health Care Resource Utilization Among Patients with Deep Vein Thrombosis Treated with Rivaroxaban Versus Low-molecular-weight Heparin and Warfarin in the Outpatient Setting.

PURPOSE: Compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin, the oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban has advantages, such as simplified care, that may lead to less health care resource utilization. METHODS: A retrospective, matched-cohort analysis was conducted using claims dated between January 2011 and December 2013 from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases. Adult patients who had a primary diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) during an outpatient or emergency room (ER) visit after November 2, 2012, and who were treated with rivaroxaban or LMWH/warfarin on the same day, were identified. Patients were observed over 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks after the DVT diagnosis. The mean numbers of hospitalizations for all causes and for venous thromboembolism (VTE) (which included those for DVT or pulmonary embolism), as well as other health care resource utilization (ER, outpatient, and other visits), and the associated health care costs and pharmacy costs, were evaluated and compared between cohorts using the Lin method. FINDINGS: All of the 512 rivaroxaban-treated patients were well matched with the LMWH/warfarin-treated patients. The mean numbers of all-cause hospitalizations were significantly lower in the rivaroxaban users compared with those in the LMWH/warfarin users over 1 week (0.012 vs 0.032; P = 0.044) and 2 weeks (0.022 vs 0.048; P = 0.040). The corresponding mean numbers of VTE-related hospitalizations were significantly lower with rivaroxaban over 1 week (0.008 vs 0.028; P = 0.020), 2 weeks (0.016 vs 0.042; P = 0.020), and 4 weeks (0.034 vs 0.068; P = 0.036). The mean numbers of all-cause and VTE-related outpatient visits were also significantly lower in rivaroxaban users compared with those in LMWH/warfarin users over 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks (all, P < 0.001). In terms of all-cause and VTE-related ER and other visits, no statistically significant differences were found between cohorts over the first 4 weeks. The associated mean all-cause total health care costs were significantly lower in the rivaroxaban users compared with those in the LMWH/warfarin users over 1 week (US $2332 vs $3428; P < 0.001) and 2 weeks ($3108 vs $4524; P < 0.001); moreover, significantly lower mean costs related to all-cause hospitalizations (weeks 1 and 2) and pharmacy (weeks 1-4) were observed in patients treated with rivaroxaban, while no differences were found in costs related to ER visits (weeks 1-4), outpatient visits (weeks 1-4), or other visits (with the exception of week 1). IMPLICATIONS: Patients with DVT treated with rivaroxaban after an outpatient/ER visit had significantly lower mean numbers of hospitalizations and outpatient visits, as well as lower mean total, hospitalization, and pharmacy costs during the first 2 weeks of treatment compared with those in matched LMWH/warfarin users.

The cost-utility of dabigatran etexilate compared with warfarin in treatment and extended anticoagulation of acute VTE in the UK.

The relative efficacy and safety of dabigatran etexilate and warfarin have been evaluated in two head-to-head, phase III, treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) trials, and one extended prophylaxis trial, in patients with high risk of recurrent VTE. Dabigatran etexilate demonstrated similar efficacy to warfarin, and was associated with a reduced risk of major or clinically relevant bleeds. Based on results of these trials, and real-life disease prognosis following discontinuation of anticoagulation treatment, we evaluated the cost-utility of dabigatran etexilate compared with warfarin in six months anticoagulation, and in extended, up to 24 months anticoagulation, in patients with acute VTE, acute deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) or acute, symptomatic, pulmonary embolism (PE). Costs were analysed from the perspective of the National Health Services (NHS) and Public Social Services (PSS) in England and Wales. Outcomes were quantified in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The estimated incremental, lifetime cost/QALY gain following acute, symptomatic VTE (DVT or PE) was £1,252/QALY when dabigatran etexilate or warfarin were administered for up to six months treatment. In treatment of acute, symptomatic PE and in DVT respective ratios were £1,767/QALY and £1,075/QALY. In extended, up to 24 months anticoagulation, dabigatran etexilate projected costs/QALY of £8,242/QALY, when compared with warfarin. Results obtained herein were robust across a number of sensitivity analyses and suggest dabigatran etexilate to be a cost-effective alternative to current standard of care when evaluated in six months treatment and in extended anticoagulation following acute VTE (DVT and/or PE).

Comparison of differences in medical costs when new oral anticoagulants are used for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism vs warfarin or placebo in the US.

OBJECTIVE: Medical costs that may be avoided when any of the four new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, are used instead of warfarin for the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) were estimated and compared. Additionally, the overall differences in medical costs were estimated for NVAF and venous thromboembolism (VTE) patient populations combined. METHODS: Medical cost differences associated with NOAC use vs warfarin or placebo among NVAF and VTE patients were estimated based on clinical event rates obtained from the published trial data. The clinical event rates were calculated as the percentage of patients with each of the clinical events during the trial periods. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted for the medical-cost differences determined for NVAF patients. A hypothetical health plan population of 1 million members was used to estimate and compare the combined medical-cost differences of the NVAF and VTE populations and were projected in the years 2015-2018. RESULTS: In a year, the medical-cost differences associated with NOAC use instead of warfarin were estimated at -$204, -$140, -$495, and -$340 per patient for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, respectively. In 2014, among the hypothetical population, the medical-cost differences were -$3.7, -$4.2, -$11.5, and -$6.6 million for NVAF and acute VTE patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, respectively. In 2014, for the combined NVAF, acute VTE, and extended VTE patient populations, medical-cost differences were -$10.0, -$10.9, -$21.0, and -$21.0 million for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg apixaban, and 5 mg apixaban, respectively. Medical-cost differences associated with use of NOACs were projected to steadily increase from 2014 to 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Medical costs are reduced when NOACs are used instead of warfarin/placebo for the treatment of NVAF or VTE, with apixaban being associated with the greatest reduction in medical costs.

A cost-analysis model for anticoagulant treatment in the hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban is the first oral factor Xa inhibitor approved in the US to reduce the risk of stroke and blood clots among people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, treat deep vein thrombosis (DVT), treat pulmonary embolism (PE), reduce the risk of recurrence of DVT and PE, and prevent DVT and PE after knee or hip replacement surgery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the costs from a hospital perspective of treating patients with rivaroxaban vs other anticoagulant agents across these five populations. METHODS: An economic model was developed using treatment regimens from the ROCKET-AF, EINSTEIN-DVT and PE, and RECORD1-3 randomized clinical trials. The distribution of hospital admissions used in the model across the different populations was derived from the 2010 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database. The model compared total costs of anticoagulant treatment, monitoring, inpatient stay, and administration for patients receiving rivaroxaban vs other anticoagulant agents. The length of inpatient stay (LOS) was determined from the literature. RESULTS: Across all populations, rivaroxaban was associated with an overall mean cost savings of $1520 per patient. The largest cost savings associated with rivaroxaban was observed in patients with DVT or PE ($6205 and $2742 per patient, respectively). The main driver of the cost savings resulted from the reduction in LOS associated with rivaroxaban, contributing to ∼90% of the total savings. Furthermore, the overall mean anticoagulant treatment cost was lower for rivaroxaban vs the reference groups. LIMITATIONS: The distribution of patients across indications used in the model may not be generalizable to all hospitals, where practice patterns may vary, and average LOS cost may not reflect the actual reimbursements that hospitals received. CONCLUSION: From a hospital perspective, the use of rivaroxaban may be associated with cost savings when compared to other anticoagulant treatments due to lower drug cost and shorter LOS associated with rivaroxaban.

Treatment, monitoring, and economic outcomes of venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients in China.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been increasing in China. However, the treatment pattern and economic burden of these patients have not been well-understood. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the patient characteristics, treatment pattern, anticoagulant monitoring, and economic burden of VTE among hospitalized patients in China. METHODS: Hospitalizations with a diagnosis of VTE [including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)] between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2013 were included. Descriptive analysis was conducted for patients' characteristics, anticoagulant treatment, international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring, and hospitalization cost [in 2013 Chinese yuan (Y) and US dollars (US$)]. Multivariate regressions were performed to assess factors associated with oral anticoagulant use and total costs of inpatient care. RESULTS: A total of 1,047 VTE-related hospitalizations were selected. The sample had a mean age of 62.4 years, with 45.9 % female. About 46.3 % of hospitalizations used heparin only, 35.0 % used warfarin, 0.8 % used rivaroxaban, and 18.0 % did not use anticoagulants. Among hospitalizations where warfarin was used, 90.8 % received at least one INR test and only 30 % had the last INR within the target therapeutic range (2-3) before discharge. The mean (standard deviation) total cost per hospitalization was Y29,114 (43,772) [US$4,757 (7,152)]. PE, VTE as primary diagnosis, female, insurance coverage, anticoagulant treatment, co-morbidities, admission condition, and surgical procedure were significantly associated with inpatient costs. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional anticoagulants were most commonly used in the study sample. Under-monitoring and suboptimal care may be an issue for patients treated with warfarin. The average total inpatient cost of VTE-related hospitalizations is high.

[Budgetary impact for the National Health System of apixaban prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement]. / Impacto presupuestario para el Sistema Nacional de Salud de la prevención del trombolismo venoso con apixaban en pacientes sometidos a artroplastia total de rodilla o cadera.

BACKGROUND: Due to high health care costs of venous thromboembolism (VTE), economic analyses are needed to determine the efficiency of different drug treatments. Consequently, a study was conducted to estimate the budgetary impact for the National Health System (NHS) with apixaban for prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in total hip (THR) or knee (TKR) replacement. METHODS: Cost considered: the drugs for the prevention of VTE (apixaban, dabigatran, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, other heparins, rivaroxaban and warfarin) and the complications of VTE in the short term and in 5 years (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, bleedings and the post-thrombotic syndrome). The effectiveness of prophylaxis was estimated using a meta-analysis. The VTE rates and death with apixaban are lower in THR and TKR than enoxaparin (-3.5% and -10.0%, respectively) with less bleeding events (-0.7% and -1.6%, respectively). Population data and unit costs were obtained from Spanish sources. TIME HORIZON: 5 years. All costs were discounted by 3.5% annually. Five years after commercialization, the use of apixaban was estimated to account for 23% of the prophylaxis of VTE and the use of enoxaparin decrease from the 60% to 33%. RESULTS: Apixaban´s introduction for the prophylaxis of VTE would have a significant impact for the NHS, resulting in a saving of 547,422 Euro over a period of 5 years. In the case of outpatient administration of heparin did not have a cost, the savings for the NHS five years amount to 270,068 Euro. CONCLUSIONS: According to this study, the introduction of apixaban may reduce the rate of VTE and bleeding compared with enoxaparin, decreasing the expenditure of NHS in VTE prophylaxis.

Direct medical costs of venous thromboembolism and subsequent hospital readmission rates: an administrative claims analysis from 30 managed care organizations.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common medical condition manifested as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). Few data exist on the total economic burden of DVT and PE. OBJECTIVE: To (1) quantify the economic burden of DVT and PE in direct medical costs and utilization and (2) determine the rates of hospital readmission for DVT and PE. METHODS: Hospital claims containing DVT or PE as a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis during the period February 1998 through June 2004 were identified by retrospective analysis using the Integrated Health Care Information Services (IHCIS) National Managed Care Database. For the cost analysis, we included patients that had been enrolled in a health care plan for a minimum of 30 days prior to and 365 days following the DVT or PE hospitalization. For the readmission analysis, patients were required to have a minimum length of stay of 3 days and a pre-enrollment of 365 days. We quantified the cost burden to the health plan by examining annual DVT- and PE-related payments made by the health plan to providers for inpatient and outpatient care. RESULTS: Of 5 million plus discharges in the database with dates of service between February 1, 1998, and June 30, 2004, 32,193 (0.64%) had DVT or PE as a primary discharge diagnosis, and 26,159 (0.52%) had DVT or PE as a secondary discharge diagnosis. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, there were 5,348 patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of DVT and 4,593 patients with a secondary discharge diagnosis of DVT. For PE, 2,984 patients had a primary discharge diagnosis, and 1,119 had a secondary discharge diagnosis. The hospital readmission rates within 1 year for the combined diagnoses (DVT or PE) were 5.3% for primary and 14.3% for secondary diagnoses; 44.3% of the PE readmissions occurred within the first 30 days. Within 90 days, 50.7% of DVT readmissions and 58.6% of PE readmissions occurred. Regarding cost for a primary diagnosis, the average total annual provider payments made by a health plan were $10,804 for DVT and $16,644 for PE. For secondary diagnoses, the average total annual costs were $7,594 for DVT and $13,018 for PE. The mean hospital cost per readmission for a recurrent DVT ($11,862) was higher than the mean cost for the initial hospitalization ($9,805, P=0.006), but the mean cost per PE readmission ($14,722) was similar to the mean cost for the initial hospitalization ($14,146, P =0.38). CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of DVT and PE in direct medical cost is large, due not only to the initial hospitalization event, but also to the high rate of hospital readmission (5%-14%), over half of which occurs within 90 days.

Leptospirosis hemorrágica pulmonar / Hemorrhagic pulmonary leptospirosis

La leptospirosis es una enfermedad infecciosa característica de países orientales húmedos. La incidencia en países occidentales es relativamente infrecuente. La enfermedad suele manifestarse de dos formas clínicas principales: la hepato-renal y la pulmonar, generalmente con cierto grado de solapamiento entre ambas.Presentamos un paciente con una presentación severa de leptospirosis hemorrágica pulmonar que en el curso de la enfermedad, presentó un cuadro de embolismo multisistémico (bazo, riñón y sistema nervioso central -SNC-). (AU)

[Comparison of ambulatory and inpatient treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis of the leg: subjective and economic aspects]. / Vergleich von ambulanter und stationärer Behandlung der akuten tiefen Beinvenenthrombose: subjektive und ökonomische Aspekte.

The frequency of clinical recurrence and pulmonary embolism in patients with acute deep venous thrombosis is reduced to the same extent by hospital treatment (with unfractionated heparin) as by treatment at home (with low-molecular-weight heparin). Very few data on subjective parameters of effectiveness have been published. We performed a prospective randomized trial comparing outpatient with in-hospital treatment in 28 patients. Six clinical and quality-of-life related parameters of effectiveness were assessed quantitatively: clinical course (with a score system), pain of venous congestion of the calf muscles (with Lowenberg's test), subjective perception of pain and general well-being (with visual analogue scales), satisfaction with the care provided, and absence from work. Subjective effectiveness was compared with the costs of each form of treatment. Outpatient treatment was significantly more effective than in-hospital treatment with regard to the objective parameters. It was, however, associated with less well-being and more pain than in-hospital treatment. The discrepancy is explained by eventually insufficient adjuvant treatment measures (which consisted of external leg compression by stockings and forced walking) and by anxiety brought on by the information that potentially lethal pulmonary embolism could occur despite anticoagulant therapy. Outpatient treatment was less costly. On the average and per patient it was CHF 3944 less expensive than treatment in hospital. An estimation reveals that the Swiss health care system would save about CHF 25 million per year if the 85% of patients with deep-vein thrombosis suitable for home care were given this form of treatment. We conclude that outpatient management is subjectively cost-effective but should be optimised to eliminate certain drawbacks associated with it.