Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Before the approval of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination, there were no approved therapies in the adjuvant setting that target the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma from a U.S. commercial payer perspective using data from the COMBI-AD trial, as well as other sources. METHODS: The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive, resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma was evaluated from the perspective of a hypothetical population of 1 million members with demographic characteristics consistent with those of a commercially insured U.S. insurance plan (i.e., adults aged less than 65 years) using an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. The model compared melanoma-related health care costs over a 3-year projection period under 2 scenarios: (1) a reference scenario in which dabrafenib and trametinib are assumed to be unavailable for adjuvant therapy and (2) a new scenario in which the combination is assumed to be available. Treatments potentially displaced by dabrafenib and trametinib were assumed to include observation, high-dose interferon alpha-2b, ipilimumab, and nivolumab. Costs considered in the model include those of adjuvant therapies and treatment of locoregional and distant recurrences. The numbers of patients eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib were based on data from cancer registries, published sources, and assumptions. Treatment mixes under the reference and new scenarios were based on market research data, clinical expert opinion, and assumptions. Probabilities of recurrence and death were based on data from the COMBI-AD trial and an indirect treatment comparison. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost prices. Costs of distant recurrence were from a health insurance claims study. RESULTS: In a hypothetical population of 1 million commercially insured members, 48 patients were estimated to become eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib in combination over the 3-year projection period; in the new scenario, 10 patients were projected to receive such treatment. Cumulative costs of melanoma-related care were estimated to be $6.3 million in the reference scenario and $6.9 million in the new scenario. The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination was an increase of $549 thousand overall and 1.5 cents per member per month. CONCLUSIONS: For a hypothetical U.S. commercial health plan of 1 million members, the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment for melanoma is likely to be relatively modest and within the range of published estimates for oncology therapies. These results may assist payers in making coverage decisions regarding the use of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib in melanoma. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided to Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI) by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Stellato, Moynahan, and Delea are employed by PAI. Ndife, Koruth, Mishra, and Gunda are employed by Novartis. Ghate was employed by Novartis at the time of this study and is shareholder in Novartis, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, and Mannkind Corporation. Gerbasi was employed by PAI at the time of this study and is currently an employee, and stockholder, of Sage Therapeutics. Delea reports grant funding from Merck and research funding from Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Jazz, EMD Serono, and 21st Century Oncology, unrelated to this work.

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.

Pharmaceutical industry funding of events for healthcare professionals on non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in Australia: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the nature, frequency and content of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-related events for healthcare professionals sponsored by the manufacturers of the NOACs in Australia. A secondary objective is to compare these data to the rate of dispensing of the NOACs in Australia. DESIGN AND SETTING: This cross-sectional study examined consolidated data from publicly available Australian pharmaceutical industry transparency reports from October 2011 to September 2015 on NOAC-related educational events. Data from April 2011 to June 2016 on NOAC dispensing, subsidised under Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), were obtained from the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics of NOAC-related educational events including costs (in Australian dollars, $A), numbers of events, information on healthcare professional attendees and content of events; and NOAC dispensing rates. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 2797 NOAC-related events, costing manufacturers a total of $A10 578 745. Total expenditure for meals and beverages at all events was $A4 238 962. Events were predominantly attended by general practitioners (42%, 1174/2797), cardiologists (35%, 977/2797) and haematologists (23%, 635/2797). About 48% (1347/2797) of events were held in non-clinical settings, mainly restaurants, bars and cafes. Around 55% (1551/2797) of events consisted of either conferences, meetings or seminars. The analysis of the content presented at two events detected promotion of NOACs for unapproved indications, an emphasis on a favourable benefit/harm profile, and that all speakers had close ties with the manufacturers of the NOACs. Following PBS listings relevant to each NOAC, the numbers of events related to that NOAC and the prescribing of that NOAC increased. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the substantial investment in NOAC-related events made by four pharmaceutical companies had a promotional purpose. Healthcare professionals should seek independent information on newly subsidised medicines from, for example, government agencies or drug bulletins.

Anticoagulation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease.

Background and Purpose- Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are safer, at least equally efficacious, and cost-effective compared to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) but they remain underused, particularly in demented patients. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of DOACs compared with warfarin in patients with AF and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods- We constructed a microsimulation model to estimate the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation therapy (adjusted-dose warfarin and various DOACs) in 70-year-old patients with AF and AD from a US societal perspective. We stratified patient cohorts based on stage of AD and care setting. Model parameters were estimated from secondary sources. Health benefits were measured in the number of acute health events, life-years, and QALYs gained. We classified alternatives as cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. Results- For patients with AF and AD, compared with warfarin, DOACs increase costs but also increase QALYs by reducing the risk of stroke. For mild-AD patients living in the community, edoxaban increased lifetime costs by $6603 and increased QALYs by 0.076 compared to warfarin, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86 882/QALY gained. Even though DOACs increased QALYs compared with warfarin for all patient groups (ranging from 0.019 to 0.085 additional QALYs), no DOAC treatment alternative had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$150 000/QALY gained for patients with moderate to severe AD. For patients living in a long-term care facility with mild AD, the DOAC with the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (rivaroxaban) costs $150 169 per QALY gained; for patients with more severe AD, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were higher. Conclusions- For patients with AF and mild AD living in the community, edoxaban is cost-effective compared with warfarin. Even though patients with moderate and severe AD living in the community and patients with any stage of AD living in a long-term care setting may obtain positive clinical benefits from anticoagulation treatment, DOACs are not cost-effective compared with warfarin for these populations. Compared to aspirin, no oral anticoagulation (warfarin or any DOAC) is cost effective in patients with AF and AD.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Apixaban versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin use for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with chronic kidney disease is debated. Apixaban was shown to be safer than warfarin, with superior reduction in the risk of stroke, systemic embolism, mortality, and major bleeding irrespective of kidney function. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-utility of apixaban compared with warfarin in AF patients at different levels of kidney function. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness of apixaban compared with warfarin in AF patients at three levels of kidney function: estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of more than 80 ml/min, 50 to 80 ml/min, and 50 ml/min or less. Event rates and associated utilities were obtained from previous literature. The model adopted the US health care system perspective, with hospitalization costs extracted from the Healthcare and Utilization Project. Treatment costs were obtained from official price lists. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of results. RESULTS: Apixaban was a dominant treatment strategy compared with warfarin in AF patients with eGFR levels of 50 ml/min or less and 50 to 80 ml/min. In patients with an eGFR of more than 80 ml/min, apixaban was cost-effective compared with warfarin, costing $6307 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results were consistent assuming anticoagulant discontinuation after major bleeding events. Compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban, apixaban was the only cost-effective anticoagulant strategy relative to warfarin in both mild and moderate renal impairment settings. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban is a favorably cost-effective alternative to warfarin in AF patients with normal kidney function and potentially cost-saving in those with renal impairment.

Cost-effectiveness of perampanel for the treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS) in epilepsy: A Spanish perspective.

BACKGROUND: Persistent seizures are associated with physical injury, reduced quality of life, and psychosocial impairment. Perampanel is approved for the adjunctive treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of perampanel as adjunctive therapy to other antiepileptic drugs (AED) compared with AED maintenance therapy alone for the treatment of PGTCS. METHODS: We developed a Markov model for PGTCS where transitions were based on treatment response rates. The analysis was conducted over a 33-year time horizon from the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) and societal perspectives. Efficacy data were derived from clinical studies. Resource use, market shares, costs, and utilities were obtained from Kantar Health's National Health and Wellness Survey. Drug costs were obtained from the Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case analysis from the NHS perspective, perampanel was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €16,557/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) relative to AED maintenance therapy for the treatment of PGTCS. Incremental costs were €5475 and incremental QALYs were 0.33. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the ICERs were strongly influenced by discounting rate for costs and health effects, with little influence of other parameters, including perampanel cost and utilities. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probability of perampanel being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY was 89.3%. From the societal perspective, perampanel provided a cost-savings of €5288 per patient compared with AED maintenance therapy alone. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that perampanel is likely to be a cost-effective option.

Benefit, risk and cost of new oral anticoagulants and warfarin in atrial fibrillation; A multicriteria decision analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Warfarin and new oral anticoagulants are effective in reducing stroke in atrial fibrillation; however, the benefits and risks rates in clinical trials show heterogeneity for each anticoagulant, and is unknown the cost influence on a model considering most of the treatment consequences. We designed a benefit-risk and cost assessment of oral anticoagulants. DESIGN: We followed the roadmap proposed by IMI-PROTECT and the considerations of emerged good practice to perform Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). The roadmap defines the following steps: (1) planning, (2) evidence gathering and data preparation, (3) analyses, (4) explorations, and (5) conclusions. We defined two reference points (0-100) to allocate numerical values for scores and weights, and used an analogue numeric scale to assess physicians' preferences. As benefits of the anticoagulant therapy, we included reductions in stroke and all-cause mortality; intracranial haemorrhage, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, minor bleeding and myocardial infarction were considered risks. We also made an estimation of the annual drug cost per person. MAIN RESULTS: The scores were: Apixaban 33, Dabigatrán 25, warfarin 18 and Rivaroxaban 14 this score reveals the most preferred up to the less preferred option, considering the benefit-risk ratio and drug costs altogether. The relative model weights were: 51.1% for risks, 40.4% for benefits and 8.5% for cost. The sensitivity analysis confirms the model robustness. CONCLUSIONS: From this analysis, apixaban should be considered as the preferred anticoagulant option -due to a better benefit-risk balance and a minor cost influence- followed by dabigatran, warfarin and rivaroxaban.

Health economic evaluation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in France.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a specific form of chronic, progressive, fibrosing interstitial pneumonia of unknown cause. To date, there is no specific cure for IPF, and only two treatments (pirfenidone and nintedanib) have marketing authorizations and recommendations in international and French guidelines. OBJECTIVES: A cost-utility analysis (CUA) has been conducted to evaluate the efficiency of nintedanib, in comparison to all available alternatives, in a French setting using the official methodological guidelines. METHODS: A previously developed lifetime Markov model was adapted to the French setting by simulating the progression of IPF patients in terms of lung function decline, incidence of acute exacerbations, and death. Considering the effect of IPF on patients' quality-of-life, a CUA integrating quality adjusted life years (QALY) was chosen as the primary outcome measure in the main analysis. One-way, probabilistic, and scenario sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Treatment with nintedanib resulted in an estimated total cost of €76,414 (vs €82,665 for pirfenidone). In comparison with all other available options, nintedanib was predicted to provide the most QALY gained (3.34 vs 3.29). This analysis suggests that nintedanib has a 59.0% chance of being more effective than pirfenidone and s 77.3% chance of being cheaper than pirfenidone. Sensitivity analyses showed the results of the CUA to be robust. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this CUA has found that nintedanib appears to be a more cost-effective therapeutic option than pirfenidone in a French setting, due to fewer acute exacerbations and a better tolerability profile.

Major bleeding risk and healthcare economic outcomes of non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients newly-initiated with oral anticoagulant therapy in the real-world setting.

AIMS: This study compared the risk for major bleeding (MB) and healthcare economic outcomes of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) after initiating treatment with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin. METHODS: NVAF patients who initiated apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin were identified from the IMS Pharmetrics Plus database (January 1, 2013-September 30, 2015). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance differences in patient characteristics between study cohorts: patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, apixaban vs dabigatran, and apixaban vs warfarin. Risk of hospitalization and healthcare costs (all-cause and MB-related) were compared between matched cohorts during the follow-up. RESULTS: During the follow-up, risks for all-cause (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2-1.7) and MB-related (HR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.0-2.4) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with rivaroxaban vs apixaban. Adjusted total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban ($3,950 vs $4,333 per patient per month [PPPM], p = .002) and MB-related medical costs were not statistically significantly different ($100 vs $233 PPPM, p = .096). Risk for all-cause hospitalization (HR = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.6-2.4) was significantly greater for patients treated with dabigatran vs apixaban, although total all-cause healthcare costs were not statistically different. Risks for all-cause (HR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.9-2.5) and MB-related (HR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.4-3.0) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with warfarin vs apixaban. Total all-cause healthcare costs ($3,919 vs $4,177 PPPM, p = .025) and MB-related medical costs ($96 vs $212 PPPM, p = .026) were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs warfarin. LIMITATIONS: This retrospective database analysis does not establish causation. CONCLUSIONS: In the real-world setting, compared with rivaroxaban and warfarin, apixaban is associated with reduced risk of hospitalization and lower healthcare costs. Compared with dabigatran, apixaban is associated with lower risk of hospitalizations.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Apixaban, Dabigatran, Rivaroxaban, and Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for stroke prevention among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients by incorporating Taiwanese demographic information derived from a population-based database, the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD), into cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: From 1 January to 31 December 2012, 98,213 AF patients were selected from the NHIRD database. A Markov model was constructed that combined published secondary data with the Taiwan NHIRD to compare the cost and incremental cost effectiveness of apixaban 5 mg twice daily, dabigatran 110 or 150 mg twice daily, rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily, and warfarin. RESULTS: The lifetime costs of warfarin, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, rivaroxaban 20 mg, and apixaban 5 mg were US$10,660, US$13,693, US$13,426, US$13,455, US$15,965, respectively. Apixaban resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness of US$39,351, US$27,039, US$41,298, and US$48,896 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with warfarin, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg, respectively. In Monte-Carlo analyses, apixaban 5 mg, rivaroxaban 20 mg, warfarin, and dabigatran 110 mg were cost effective in 83, 10.4, 7, and 0.8%, respectively, of the simulations using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$50,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban was more cost effective than warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with AF. Among the anticoagulant therapies, the WTP threshold of apixaban was about US$50,000 per QALY gained. These cost-effectiveness estimations provide useful information to aid clinical decision making in stroke prevention for AF patients.

Cost-effectiveness of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk of bleeding and normal kidney function.

INTRODUCTION: The comparative cost-effectiveness of all oral anticoagulants approved up to date has not been evaluated from the US perspective. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of edoxaban 60mg, apixaban 5mg, dabigatran 150mg, dabigatran 110mg, rivaroxaban 20mg and warfarin in stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients at high-risk of bleeding (defined as HAS-BLED score≥3). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov state-transition model to evaluate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with each of the six treatments from the perspective of US third-party payers. Probabilities of clinical events were obtained from the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, ARISTOTLE and ENGAGE AF-TIMI trials; costs were derived from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and other studies. Because edoxaban is only indicated in patients with creatinine clearance ≤95ml/min, we re-ran our analyses after excluding edoxaban from the analysis. RESULTS: Treatment with edoxaban 60mg cost $77,565/QALY gained compared to warfarin, and apixaban 5mg cost $108,631/QALY gained compared to edoxaban 60mg. When edoxaban was not included in the analysis, treatment with apixaban 5mg cost $84,128/QALY gained, compared to warfarin. Dabigatran 150mg, dabigatran 110mg and rivaroxaban 20mg were dominated strategies. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with creatinine clearance between 50 and 95ml/min, apixaban 5mg was the most cost-effective treatment for willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP) above $115,000/QALY gained, and edoxaban 60mg was cost-effective when the WTP was between $75,000 and $115,000/QALY gained. For patients with creatinine clearance >95ml/min, apixaban 5mg was the most cost-effective treatment for WTP thresholds above $80,000/QALY gained.

Economic evaluation of the new oral anticoagulants for the prevention of thromboembolic events: a cost-minimization analysis.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Randomized clinical trials have shown that the new oral anticoagulants have at least similar impact regarding reduction of thromboembolic events, compared with warfarin, with similar or improved safety profiles. There is little data on real costs within clinical practice. Our aim here was to perform economic analysis on these strategies from the perspective of Brazilian society and the public healthcare system. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cost-minimization analysis; anticoagulation clinic of Hospital Municipal Odilon Behrens, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. METHODS: Patients at the anticoagulation clinic were recruited between August and October 2011, with minimum follow-up of four weeks. Operational and non-operational costs were calculated and corrected to 2015. RESULTS: This study included 633 patients (59% women) of median age 62 years (interquartile range -49-73). The mean length of follow-up was 64 ± 28 days. The average cost per patient per month was $ 54.26 (US dollars). Direct costs accounted for 32.5% of the total cost. Of these, 69.5% were related to healthcare professionals. With regards to indirect costs, 52.4% were related to absence from work and 47.6% to transportation. Apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were being sold to Brazilian public institutions, on average, for $ 49.87, $ 51.40 and $ 52.16 per patient per month, respectively, which was lower than the costs relating to warfarin treatment. CONCLUSION: In the Brazilian context, from the perspective of society and the public healthcare system, the cumulative costs per patient using warfarin with follow-up in anticoagulation clinics is currently higher than the strategy of prescribing the new oral anticoagulants.

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.

Non-vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Absolute Benefit and Harm Assessments Yield Novel Insights.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Benefits and/or harms (including costs) of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin therapy need appreciation in relative and absolute terms. METHODS: Accordingly, we derived clinically relevant relative and absolute benefit/harm parameters for NOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, edoxaban) compared to warfarin from four clinical trials involving atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. For each trial, we tabulated patient numbers enduring four important outcomes and calculated unadjusted relative risk reduction (RRR) and number needed to treat (NNT)/year values (and 95% confidence intervals) for the NAOC compared to warfarin. These outcomes were as follows: stroke/systemic embolism (primary endpoint), hemorrhagic stroke, major bleeds, and death. We also addressed drug acquisition costs. RESULTS: Each NOAC was noninferior to warfarin for primary-outcome prevention; RRRs were 12-33% and NNT/year values were 182-481, and all but one indicated statistically significant superiority. All the NOACs yielded statistically significant reductions in hemorrhagic stroke risk; RRRs were 42-74% and NNT/year values were 364-528. Major bleeding risk was comparable in both groups. Apixaban yielded a lower NNT/year for preventing death than for primary-outcome prevention. Compared to warfarin, NOAC acquisition costs were 70- to 140-fold greater. CONCLUSIONS: For the primary outcome, the absolute benefits of NOACs were modest (NNT/year values being large). Reduced hemorrhagic stroke rates with NOACs could be due to superior embolic infarct prevention and fewer consequential hemorrhagic transformations. Among apixaban recipients, the absolute mortality benefit exceeded that for the primary outcome, indicating prevention of additional unrelated deaths. The substantially greater NOAC acquisition costs need viewing against probable greater safety and the avoidance of monitoring bleeding risks.

Novel oral anticoagulants vs warfarin for the management of postoperative atrial fibrillation: clinical outcomes and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: The novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran are indicated for the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, but their use in patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is less well defined. METHODS: All patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting from 2013 to 2015 (n = 598) were studied. Patients with POAF anticoagulated with either warfarin or NOACs were evaluated for differences in length of stay, blood product use, bleeding, and cost of therapy. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the NOAC and warfarin group for any of the clinical outcomes evaluated. Time to therapeutic anticoagulation was significantly longer with warfarin. Neither group had a major bleeding event during the initial hospitalization, but 2 patients in the warfarin group had delayed major bleeding complications. Total costs were significantly reduced in patients treated with NOACs. CONCLUSIONS: Both NOACs and warfarin are safe and effective means of anticoagulation for POAF after coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients were therapeutic more rapidly and with less cost of treatment when NOACs were used.

Cost-Effectiveness of Novel Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation.

Recently, novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been approved for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Although these agents overcome some disadvantages of warfarin, they are associated with increased costs. In this review, we will provide an overview of the cost-effectiveness of NOACs for stroke prevention in AF. Our comments and conclusions are limited to studies directly comparing all available NOACs within the same framework. The available cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that NOACs are cost-effective compared to warfarin, with apixaban likely being most favorable. However, significant limitations in these models are present and should be appreciated when interpreting their results.

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.

Cost effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in two different European healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to investigate the cost effectiveness of apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran compared with coumarin derivatives for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in a country with specialized anticoagulation clinics (the Netherlands) and in a country without these clinics (the UK). METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was used to analyse the cost effectiveness of apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran compared with coumarin derivatives in the Netherlands and the UK over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: In the Netherlands, the use of rivaroxaban, apixaban, or dabigatran increased health by 0.166, 0.365, and 0.374 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with coumarin derivatives, but also increased costs by 5,681, 4,754, and 5,465, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were 34,248, 13,024, and 14,626 per QALY gained. In the UK, health was increased by 0.302, 0.455, and 0.461 QALYs, and the incremental costs were similar for all three new oral anticoagulants (5,118-5,217). The ICERs varied from 11,172 to 16,949 per QALY gained. In the Netherlands, apixaban had the highest chance (37 %) of being cost effective at a threshold of 20,000; in the UK, this chance was 41 % for dabigatran. The quality of care, reflected in time in therapeutic range, had an important influence on the ICER. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran are cost-effective alternatives to coumarin derivatives in the UK, while in the Netherlands, only apixaban and dabigatran could be considered cost effective. The cost effectiveness of the new oral anticoagulants is largely dependent on the setting and quality of local anticoagulant care facilities.

Evaluation of medical costs associated with use of new oral anticoagulants compared with standard therapy among venous thromboembolism patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated differences in medical costs associated with clinical end-points from randomized clinical trials that compared the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, to standard therapy for treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Event rates of efficacy and safety end-points from the clinical trials (RE-COVER, RE-COVER II, EINSTEIN-Pooled, AMPLIFY, Hokusai-VTE trial) were obtained from published literature. Incremental annual medical costs among patients with clinical events from a US payer perspective were obtained from the literature or healthcare claims databases and inflation adjusted to 2013 costs. Differences in total medical costs associated with clinical end-points for the NOACs vs standard therapy were then estimated. One-way and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: A lower rate of major bleedings was associated with use of any of the NOACs vs standard therapy. Except for dabigatran, use of NOACs was also associated with a lower rate of recurrent VTE/death. As a result of the reduction in clinical event rates, the overall medical cost differences were -$146, -$482, -$918, and -$344 for VTE patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, respectively, vs patients treated with standard therapy. CONCLUSIONS: When any of the four NOACs are used instead of standard therapy for acute VTE, treatment medical costs are reduced. Apixaban is associated with the greatest reduction in medical costs, which is driven by medical cost reductions associated with both efficacy and safety end-points. Further evaluation may be needed to validate these results in the real-world setting.