Total costs of treating venous thromboembolism: implication of different cost perspectives in a Danish setting.

Aim: Optimal use of scarce resources is a focus in the healthcare sector, as resources devoted to health care are limited. Costs and health economic analyses can help guide decision-making concerning treatments. One important factor is the choice of cost perspective that can range from a focus on narrow drug budget costs to broader economic perspectives. In the case of treatment with oral anticoagulants in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), encompassing deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, the aim of this cost analysis was to illustrate the differences in costs when applying different cost perspectives.Methods: In a cost analysis, pairwise comparisons of average costs of 6 months standard treatment with either a low molecular weight heparin parenteral anticoagulant (LMWH) and a Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA) versus one of the non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants [NOACs; dabigatran etexilate, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) used in daily clinical practice in Denmark for VTE patients were carried out. Each analysis included the results from five different cost analyses with increasingly broader cost perspectives going from the narrowest "drug cost only" perspective to the broadest "societal" perspective.Results: Focusing on "drug costs only", LMWH/VKA was associated with the lowest costs compared to all NOACs. However, including the economic impact of preventing recurrent VTE and limit bleedings, apixaban and rivaroxaban resulted in slightly lower health care costs than LMWH/VKA. When applying the "societal perspective", the total costs saved with apixaban and rivaroxaban compared to LMWH/VKA further increased, with apixaban having the lowest total costs.Conclusions: The present study's case of oral anticoagulants in VTE treatment illustrated the importance of the cost perspective in the choice of therapy. If decision-making were based on drug costs only, instead of applying a health care sector or societal cost perspective, suboptimal decisions may be likely.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rivaroxaban for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, standard treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) concerned a combination of short-term low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and long-term vitamin-K antagonist (VKA). Risk of bleeding and the requirement for regular anticoagulation monitoring are, however, limiting their use. Rivaroxaban is a novel oral anticoagulant associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeds (hazard ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval = 0.37-0.79) compared to LMWH/VKA therapy, and does not require regular anticoagulation monitoring. AIMS: To evaluate the health economic consequences of treating acute VTE patients with rivaroxaban compared to treatment with LMWH/VKA, viewed from the Dutch societal perspective. METHODS: A life-time Markov model was populated with the findings of the EINSTEIN phase III clinical trial to analyze cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban therapy in treatment and prevention of VTE from a Dutch societal perspective. Primary model outcomes were total and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as life expectancy and costs. RESULTS: Over a patient's lifetime, rivaroxaban was shown to be dominant, with health gains of 0.047 QALYs and cost savings of €304 compared to LMWH/VKA therapy. Dominance was robustly present in all sensitivity analyses. Major drivers of the differences between the two treatment arms were related to anticoagulation monitoring (medical costs, travel costs, and loss of productivity) and the occurrence of major bleeds. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism results in health gains and cost savings compared to LMWH/VKA therapy. This conclusion holds for the Dutch setting, both for the societal perspective, as well as the healthcare perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus low molecular weight heparin/vitamin k antagonist for the treatment of venous thromboembolism and the prevention of recurrences.

BACKGROUND: Prior analyses beyond clinical trials are yet to evaluate the projected lifetime benefit of apixaban treatment compared to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)/vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and prevention of recurrences. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of initial plus extended treatment with apixaban versus LMWH/VKA for either initial treatment only or initial plus extended treatment. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to evaluate the lifetime clinical and economic impact of treatment of VTE and prevention of recurrences with apixaban (starting at 10 mg BID for 1 week, then 5 mg BID for 6 months, then 2.5 mg BID for an additional 12 months) versus LMWH/VKA for 6 months and either no further treatment or extended treatment with VKA for an additional 12 months. Clinical event rates to inform the model were taken from the AMPLIFY and AMPLIFY-EXT trials and a network meta-analysis. Background mortality rates, costs, and utilities were obtained from published sources. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Service. The evaluated outcomes included the number of events avoided in a 1000-patient cohort, total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: Initial plus extended treatment with apixaban was superior to both treatment durations of LMWH/VKA in reducing the number of bleeding events, and was superior to initial LMWH/VKA for 6 months followed by no therapy, in reducing VTE recurrences. Apixaban treatment was cost-effective compared to 6-month treatment with LMWH/VKA at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6692 per QALY. When initial LMWH/VKA was followed by further VKA therapy for an additional 12 months (i.e., total treatment duration of 18 months), apixaban was cost-effective at an ICER of £8528 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis suggested these findings were robust over a wide range of inputs and scenarios for the model. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, initial plus extended treatment with apixaban for treatment of VTE and prevention of recurrences appears to be economical and a clinically effective alternative to LMWH/VKA, whether used for initial or initial plus extended treatment.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Apixaban Versus Other Oral Anticoagulants for the Initial Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism and Prevention of Recurrence.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus rivaroxaban, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)/dabigatran, and LMWH/vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for the initial treatment and prevention of recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic effect of 6 months of treatment with apixaban versus other anticoagulants over a lifetime horizon. Network meta-analyses were conducted using the results of the Apixaban after the Initial Management of Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis with First-Line Therapy (AMPLIFY), EINSTEIN-pooled, and RE-COVER I and II trials for the following end points: recurrent VTE, major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and treatment discontinuations. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Service. The outcomes evaluated were the number of events avoided in a 1000-patient cohort, total costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost per QALY gained over a patient's lifetime. FINDINGS: Treatment for 6 months with apixaban was projected to result in fewer recurrent VTE and bleeding events in comparison to rivaroxaban, LMWH/dabigatran, and LMWH/VKA. Apixaban was cost-effective compared with LMWH/VKA at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2520 per QALY gained and was a dominant (ie, lower costs and higher QALYs) alternative to either rivaroxaban or LMWH/dabigatran. Sensitivity analysis indicated that results were robust over a wide range of inputs. IMPLICATIONS: The assessment of the effects and costs of apixaban in this study predicted that apixaban is a dominant alternative to rivaroxaban and LMWH/dabigatran and a cost-effective alternative to LMWH/VKA for 6 months of treatment of VTE and the prevention of recurrence.

Cost of Treating Venous Thromboembolism With Heparin and Warfarin Versus Home Treatment With Rivaroxaban.

BACKGROUND: Target-specific anticoagulants such as rivaroxaban facilitate immediate discharge of low-risk venous thromboembolism (VTE; including deep vein thrombosis [DVT] and pulmonary embolism [PE]) allowing treatment at home instead of hospitalization. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare costs accrued over 6 months by patients diagnosed with low-risk VTE and treated at home with rivaroxaban versus usual care with heparin-warfarin. METHODS: This case-control study calculated costs using the established charge-to-cost ratio from UB-04 billing claims of patients diagnosed at two metropolitan hospitals. Patients were defined as low risk by the Hestia criteria. All patients were anticoagulated for 6 months. Control patients were treated with usual care using low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and then warfarin. Case patients were treated with an initial dose of rivaroxaban in the ED followed by same-day discharge home with rivaroxaban. Medians were compared by Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Fifty cases and 47 controls were identified. Groups were well matched according to mean age, Charlson comorbidity score, and proportions by sex and location of thrombus. For all VTEs, median hospital charges for 6 months after diagnosis were $11,128 (interquartile range [IQR] = $8,110 to $23,390) for controls, compared with $4,787 (IQR = $3,042 to $7,596) for cases (Mann-Whitney U-test p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses of the first week of therapy, PE, DVT, and inpatient pharmacy costs retained significance, with costs for rivaroxaban-treated PE patients 57% lower than control PE patients (p < 0.001) and 56% lower for DVT patients (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Cost of medical care was lower for low-risk VTE patients discharged immediately from the ED with rivaroxaban therapy compared with patients treated with LMWH-warfarin.

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.

How to improve the implementation of guidelines on cancer-related thrombosis.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE; defined by deep-vein thrombosis, central venous catheter-related thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) is a major therapeutic issue in cancer patients. VTE is reported in 15-20% of patients with cancer and is an independent prognostic factor and a leading cause of death. In this population, low-molecular-weight heparins have been shown to be superior to vitamin K antagonists. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the French 'Institut National du Cancer', the European Society of Medical Oncology and the American College of Chest Physicians have all published specific guidelines, but their implementation is still low in clinical practice. Methodological assessment of these guidelines was performed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation Instrument. None of the guidelines on thrombosis and cancer have sought for patients' preferences, nor were they tested among target users. VTE in cancer patients requires a multidisciplinary approach but downstream of the guidelines publication, the potential organisational barriers in applying the recommendations have not been discussed. Tolerance and cost-effectiveness of long-term use of low-molecular-weight heparin may account for the large heterogeneity seen in daily clinical practice. Homogenization of guidelines in international consensus working groups followed by educational and active implementation strategies would be very valuable in order to improve the care of VTE in cancer patients.

Cost-minimization analysis of low-molecular-weight heparin (dalteparin) compared to unfractionated heparin for inpatient treatment of cancer patients with deep venous thrombosis.

GOALS: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has shown to be as effective as unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Although the acquisition cost of LMWH is significantly greater than that of UFH, we hypothesized that once-daily dalteparin, a LMWH, could reduce treatment costs of cancer patients with DVT by eliminating anticoagulation monitoring and shortening hospitalization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a cost-minimization model by using outcomes and resource utilization data from two retrospective matched cohorts of cancer patients who, between 1994 and 1999, were hospitalized at our comprehensive cancer center for treatment of DVT with either LMWH ( n=21) or UFH ( n=168). We assumed all LMWHs and UFH to be equally effective. The total costs for the dalteparin strategy and the UFH strategy were calculated in year 2003 U.S. dollars, from the provider's perspective, by multiplying the number of resources used for inpatient treatment of DVT by their unit costs. RESULTS: The mean total cost for inpatient care was $3,383 US dollars (95% CI= $2,683- $4,083) for dalteparin and $4,952 US dollars (95% CI=$4,718-$5,185) for UFH. Substantial savings resulted from shorter hospitalization among the dalteparin-treated patients (mean 3.19 versus 5.22 days). Sensitivity analysis did not change the conclusion that dalteparin is less expensive than UFH. CONCLUSIONS: Savings realized from less anticoagulant monitoring and shorter hospitalization offset the higher acquisition cost of dalteparin. The dalteparin strategy is less expensive than the UFH strategy for the inpatient treatment of DVT among cancer patients.

Treatment of proximal vein thrombosis with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin vs intravenous heparin. An economic perspective.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin is at least as effective and safe as classic intravenous heparin therapy for the treatment of proximal vein thrombosis. Anticoagulant monitoring is not required with low-molecular-weight heparin. OBJECTIVE: To perform an economic evaluation of these therapeutic approaches by comparing cost and effectiveness. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized trial in 432 patients with proximal vein thrombosis that compared intravenous heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin with objective documentation of clinical outcomes provided the opportunity to perform an analysis of cost-effectiveness to rank these alternative therapies in terms of both their cost and effectiveness. The economic viewpoint of this analysis was that of a third-party payer (ie, a ministry of health in Canada or an insurance company in the United States). RESULTS: In the intravenous heparin-treated group, the cost incurred for 100 patients was $414,655 (Canadian dollars) or $375,836 (US dollars), with a frequency of objectively documented venous thromboembolism of 6.9%. In the low-molecular-weight heparin-treated group, the cost incurred for 100 patients was $399,403 (Canadian dollars) or $335,687 (US dollars), with a frequency of objectively documented venous thromboembolism of 2.8%, thus providing a cost saving of $15,252 (Canadian dollars) or $40,149 (US dollars). Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed, and these procedures did not alter the findings of the study. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that low-molecular-weight heparin therapy is at least as effective and safe but less costly than intravenous heparin treatment. The potential for outpatient therapy in up to 37% of patients who are receiving low-molecular-weight heparin would substantially augment the cost saving.