Clinical and Economic Outcomes Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and/or Peripheral Artery Disease.

To address literature gaps on treatment with real-world evidence, this study compared effectiveness, safety, and cost outcomes in NVAF patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease (CAD, PAD) prescribed apixaban versus other oral anticoagulants. NVAF patients aged ≥65 years co-diagnosed with CAD/PAD initiating warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban were selected from the US Medicare population (January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2015). Propensity score matching was used to match apixaban versus warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban cohorts. Cox models were used to evaluate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), all-cause mortality, and a composite of stroke/myocardial infarction/all-cause mortality. Generalized linear and two-part models were used to compare stroke/SE, MB, and all-cause costs between cohorts. A total of 33,269 warfarin-apixaban, 9,335 dabigatran-apixaban, and 33,633 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were identified after matching. Compared with apixaban, stroke/SE risk was higher in warfarin (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.61 to 2.31), dabigatran (HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.43), and rivaroxaban (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.51) patients. MB risk was higher in warfarin (HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.52 to 1.83), dabigatran (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.68), and rivaroxaban (HR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.71 to 2.05) patients vs apixaban. Stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs per-patient per-month were higher in warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban patients versus apixaban. Total all-cause health care costs were higher in warfarin and rivaroxaban patients compared with apixaban patients. In conclusion, compared with apixaban, patients on dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin had a higher risk of stroke/SE, MB, and event-related costs.

Add-On Therapies in Cardiovascular Disease: Reviewing ICER's Report and the Potential Effect on Payers.

DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this commentary. The authors have nothing to disclose.

The Effectiveness and Value of Rivaroxaban and Icosapent Ethyl as Additive Therapies for Cardiovascular Disease.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, Commonwealth Fund, California Health Care Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), New England States Consortium Systems Organization, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, and Partners HealthCare to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Pearson is employed by ICER; Synnott was employed by ICER at the time of this report. Ollendorf, Campbell, and McQueen received grants from ICER for work on this review. Ollendorf also reports advisory board, consulting, and other fees from Sarepta Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, EMD Serono, Gerson Lehman Group, The CEA Registry Sponsors, Autolus, Analysis Group, Amgen, AbbVie, Cytokinetics, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, and University of Colorado, unrelated to this review.

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.

Health Economic Analysis of Rivaroxaban and Warfarin for Venous Thromboembolism Management in Chinese Patients.

PURPOSE: Rivaroxaban, a direct oral anticoagulant, has demonstrated non-inferiority to warfarin for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment in clinical trials. This study aimed to analyze the direct medical costs for VTE management with rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Hong Kong Chinese patients. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, VTE patients admitted to the Princess Margaret Hospital from March 2012 to February 2017 who were initiated and discharged with either rivaroxaban or warfarin were included. Patient demographic and clinical data, and healthcare resource utilization for VTE management were collected for the VTE index admission and 1-year post-discharge period. RESULTS: A total of 181 patients (90 in the rivaroxaban group; 91 in the warfarin group) were included. The mean (± SD) length of stay (LOS) was 4.8 ± 2.7 days and 8.0 ± 3.0 days in the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups, respectively (p > 0.001). The total cost for VTE index admission in the rivaroxaban group was significantly lower than that of the warfarin group (USD 5473 ± 1914 versus USD 3457 ± 1796; p < 0.001) (USD 1 = HKD 7.8). Recurrent VTE and bleeding rates in 1-year post-discharge period were not significantly different between the two groups. The direct total cost of the rivaroxaban group (USD 1271 ± 767) was significantly lower than that of the warfarin group (USD 1739 ± 1045) in 1-year post-discharge period (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Total direct cost and LOS for VTE admission and total cost in 1-year post-discharge period were significantly lower in patients initiated and discharged with rivaroxaban than those of warfarin.

Comparison of stroke- and bleed-related healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation and newly treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin.

BACKGROUND: This is one of the first head-to-head real-world evidence studies comparing stroke-related and bleed-related healthcare and resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating oral anticoagulants. METHODS: Adult NVAF patients newly diagnosed and treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin between 10/01/2010 and 12/31/2014 were identified using MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. Per-patient-per-month stroke and bleed-related HCRU and costs were reported. RESULTS: Dabigatran patients were matched 1:1 to 26,592 rivaroxaban and 33,024 warfarin patients (mean age=68 years). Compared to rivaroxaban, dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related inpatient and outpatient HCRU (0.004 vs. 0.005; 0.099 vs. 0.145) and significantly lower adjusted bleed-related costs ($116 vs. $172), all p <0.05. Compared to warfarin, dabigatran patients had significantly lower stroke-related outpatient visits (0.034 vs. 0.048, p<0.001) and higher bleed-related outpatient visits (0.101 vs. 0.091, p=0.045). Multivariate adjusted bleed-related costs were significantly lower for dabigatran patients than warfarin patients ($94 vs. $138, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that dabigatran patients had lower bleed-related HCRU and costs than rivaroxaban patients, and lower outpatient stroke-related HCRU, higher bleed-related outpatient HCRU, and lower bleed-related costs than warfarin patients. It provides valuable stroke-related and bleed-related HCRU and costs information among commercially insured and Medicare patients.

Rivaroxaban vs. warfarin on extended deep venous thromboembolism treatment: A cost analysis.

Background Standard treatment for deep venous thromboembolism involves parenteral anticoagulation overlapping with a vitamin K antagonist, an approach that is effective but associated with limitations including the need for frequent coagulation monitoring. The direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban is similarly effective to standard therapy as a single-drug treatment for venous thromboembolism and does not require routine coagulation monitoring. The aim of this analysis was to project the long-term costs and outcomes for rivaroxaban compared to standard of care (tinzaparin/warfarin). Methods A total of 184 patients who were under anticoagulant therapy with warfarin or rivaroxaban for extended deep venous thromboembolism were retrospectively evaluated; 59 received rivaroxaban and 125 received warfarin therapy. Assessments were made on age, gender, place of residence, the duration of anticoagulation, mean international normalized ratio value, the effective rate of international normalized ratio (time in the therapeutic range), bleeding-related complication rate, duration of hospitalization due to complications, the number of annual outpatient department admission, cost for drug, cost for hospitalization, cost for outpatient department admission and international normalized ratio measurements. Results The annual outpatient cost is higher in warfarin group (147.09 ± 78 vs. 62.32 ± 19.79 USD p < 0.001). But annual drug cost is higher in rivaroxaban group (362.6 vs. 71.55 ± 31.01 USD p < 0.001). Overall cost of rivaroxaban group is higher than warfarin group (476.25 ± 36.78 vs. 364.82 ± 174.44 USD). Warfarin is not cost-effective when non-drug costs (342.5 ± 174.44 vs. 113.65 ± 36.77) and hospital costs (173.85 ± 122.73 vs. 64.9 ± 23.55 USD) were analyzed. Conclusion This analysis suggests that rivaroxaban has lower costs than warfarin in terms of outpatient department admission and hospital costs due to complications; however, warfarin was more economic when all cost parameters were considered. Time in the therapeutic range was found as 56% for warfarin that should be taken into account while analyzing costs and benefits.

CYP2C19 LOF and GOF-Guided Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of CYP2C19 loss-of-function and gain-of-function allele guided (LOF/GOF-guided) antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: A life-long decision-analytic model was designed to simulate outcomes of three strategies: universal clopidogrel (75 mg daily), universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor (prasugrel 10 mg daily or ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily), and LOF/GOF-guided therapy (LOF/GOF allele carriers receiving alternative P2Y12 inhibitor, wild-type patients receiving clopidogrel). Model outcomes included clinical event rates, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and direct medical costs from perspective of US healthcare provider. RESULTS: Base-case analysis found nonfatal myocardial infarction (5.62%) and stent thrombosis (1.2%) to be the lowest in universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor arm, whereas nonfatal stroke (0.72%), cardiovascular death (2.42%), and major bleeding (2.73%) were lowest in LOF/GOF-guided group. LOF/GOF-guided arm gained the highest QALYs (7.5301 QALYs) at lowest life-long cost (USD 76,450). One-way sensitivity analysis showed base-case results were subject to the hazard ratio of cardiovascular death in carriers versus non-carriers of LOF allele and hazard ratio of cardiovascular death in non-carriers of LOF allele versus general patients. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, LOF/GOF-guided therapy, universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor, and universal clopidogrel were the preferred strategy (willingness-to-pay threshold = 50,000 USD/QALY) in 99.07%, 0.04%, and 0.89% of time, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using both CYP2C19 GOF and LOF alleles to select antiplatelet therapy appears to be the preferred antiplatelet strategy over universal clopidogrel and universal alternative P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for ACS patients with PCI.

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.

The economic implications of switching to rivaroxaban from enoxaparin plus vitamin K antagonist in the treatment of venous thromboembolism.

OBJECTIVE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) impacts ∼900,000 individuals annually in the US, causing up to 100,000 deaths. Patients experiencing VTE have heightened risk of recurrence. Initial parenteral anti-coagulation is standard therapy for acute VTE followed by ≥3 months of warfarin, which introduces the risk of major bleeding. Balancing increased risks of bleeding and recurrent VTE remains challenging. Recent clinical trials suggest that rivaroxaban, an oral direct inhibitor of factor Xa, provides an effective, safe, simplified approach to treatment. This study considers the economic implications of these data. METHODS: This study modeled inpatient, acute, and 1-year VTE costs for a hypothetical commercial plan with 1 million members. At baseline, all VTE patients receive standard therapy. Alternatively, 25% are instead treated with rivaroxaban. Model inputs are trial- and literature-based. RESULTS: Standard therapy for VTE consumes 9474 inpatient days ($31.6 million). Added to that is treatment for 74 recurrences ($1.4 million); major and non-major bleed events ($1 million); and direct costs of anti-coagulation ($5.3 million). Alternatively, a 25% shift to oral anti-coagulation with rivaroxaban reduces inpatient days (by 5%); associated acute-care costs (by 2%); recurrences and costs (by 6%). Four major bleeding events are prevented, at the cost of one additional non-major bleeding event, which, taken together, reduce net utilization by 9%. Direct costs of anti-coagulation increase by 5%. CONCLUSION: The reduction in inpatient utilization, recurrences, and major bleeding resulting from a 25% shift from standard therapy to rivaroxaban following acute VTE would conserve ∼$860,475 for every 1 million commercial health plan enrollees.

Cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in German patients with atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of the novel fixed-dose anticoagulant rivaroxaban compared with the current standard of care, warfarin, for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to model the costs and health outcomes of both treatments, potential adverse events, and resulting health states over 35 years. Analyses were based on a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with non-valvular AF at moderate to high risk of stroke. The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over the lifetime, and was assessed from the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) perspective. Costs and utility data were drawn from public data and the literature, while event probabilities were derived from both the literature and rivaroxaban's pivotal ROCKET AF trial. RESULTS: Stroke prophylaxis with rivaroxaban offers health improvements over warfarin treatment at additional cost. From the SHI perspective, at baseline the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of rivaroxaban was 15,207 per QALY gained in 2014. The results were robust to changes in the majority of variables; however, they were sensitive to the price of rivaroxaban, the hazard ratios for stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, the time horizon, and the discount rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that the substantially higher medication costs of rivaroxaban were offset by mitigating the shortcomings of warfarin, most notably frequent dose regulation and bleeding risk. Future health economic studies on novel oral anticoagulants should evaluate the cost effectiveness for secondary stroke prevention and, as clinical data from direct head-to-head comparisons become available, new anticoagulation therapies should be compared against each other.

[Economic evaluation of Thrombopoietin Receptor Agonists in the treatment of chronic primary immune thrombocytopenia]. / Evaluación económica del tratamiento de la trombocitopenia inmune primaria crónica refractaria con agonistas del receptor de la trombopoyetina.

PURPOSE: To develop a tool to assist the decision-making for selection of Thrombopoyetin Receptor Agonists of adult patients with chronic immune primary thrombocytopenia (PTI). METHODS: Stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis with a 6-Health- States Markov model: stable, bleeding type 2, 3 or 4, post-type 4 bleeding and death. Each simulation analyzes a randomly generated scenario that describes patients characteristics, results measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs (in ?2011). Distributions were obtained from the Spanish data of the European health survey of 2009, the INE estimate of population for 2011 and the 6-months clinical studies for Eltrombopag and Romiplostim. Utility values were obtained from the literature and the costs from Spanish official rates lists. A set of 10.000 random scenarios were generated and the patients evolution of each scenario was simulated during a time horizon of five years (in 2-weeks cycles). National Health System Perspective was used and the annual discount rate was set at 3%. RESULTS: Eltrombopag showed more effectiveness in 9.983 scenarios and there was no difference in 17. In 7.048 scenarios the alternative Eltombopag was dominant. It was cost-effective in another 19 (threshold 30,000 ??/AVAC). CONCLUSIONS: Eltrombopag was the most cost-effective alternative in 70,67% of the simulated scenarios and its use could produce lower costs to the NHS.

Objetivo: Desarrollar una herramienta de apoyo a la decisión en la selección de agonistas del receptor de trombopoyetina en el tratamiento de pacientes adultos con trombocitopenia inmune primaria crónica (PTI) refractaria. Métodos: Análisis coste-efectividad estocástico con un modelo de Markov de seis estados: estable, sangrado tipo 2, 3 ó 4, post-sangrado 4 y muerte. Cada simulación analiza un escenario aleatoriamente generado que describe las características del paciente, los resultados medidos en años de vida ajustados a calidad (AVACs) y los costes (en ?2011). Se obtuvieron distribuciones a partir de los datos para España de la Encuesta Europea de Salud de 2009, de la estimación de población para 2011 del INE, de los estudios a 6 meses de Eltrombopag y Romiplostim, de las utilidades obtenidas de la bibliografía y de las tarifas oficiales en España para procesos y actividad. Se generaron 10.000 escenarios aleatorios y se simuló la evolución de los pacientes de cada escenario durante un horizonte temporal de cinco años (ciclos de dos semanas). Perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud (SNS). Tasa de descuento anual del 3% para costes y efectos. Resultados: En 9.983 escenarios Eltrombopag mostró mayor efectividad y en 17 no hubo diferencias. Eltombopag fue la alternativa dominante en 7.048 escenarios y la más coste efectiva en otros 19 (umbral 30.000 ?/AVAC). Conclusiones: Eltrombopag es la alternativa más coste-efectiva en el 70,67% de los escenarios simulados, por lo que su uso podría producir menores costes al SNS.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared with aspirin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation among patients unsuitable for warfarin.

BACKGROUND: Compared with aspirin, apixaban reduces stroke risk in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients unsuitable for warfarin by 63% but does not increase major bleeding. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus aspirin. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Apixaban versus Acetylsalicylic Acid to Prevent Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Who Have Failed or Are Unsuitable for Vitamin-K Antagonist Treatment (AVERROES) trial and other studies, we constructed a Markov model to evaluate the costs (2011US$), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus aspirin from the Medicare perspective. Our base-case assumed a 70-year-old AF patient cohort with a CHADS(2) score=2 and a lower-risk of bleeding. We used a 1-month cycle-length and ran separate base-case analyses assuming a trial-length (1-year) and a longer-term (10-year) follow-up. Total costs/patient were $3454 and $1805 for apixaban and aspirin in the trial-length and $44 232 and $50 066 in the 10-year model. Corresponding QALYs were 0.96 and 0.96 in the trial-length and 6.87 and 6.51 in the 10-year model, making apixaban inferior in the first model but dominant in the latter. Conclusions were sensitive to baseline stroke rate in both models, and the monthly cost of major stroke, relative risk of stroke, and prior vitamin-K antagonist use in the life-time model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested apixaban would only be a cost-effective alternative (<$50 000/QALY) to aspirin 11% of the time in the trial-length model, but cost-effective or dominant 96.7% and 87.5% of iterations in the 10-year model. CONCLUSIONS: In our trial-length model, apixaban was more costly and no more effective than aspirin; however, as follow-up was extended, apixaban became cost-effective and eventually dominant.

[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.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of aspirin versus oral anticoagulants after acute myocardial infarction in Italy -- equivalence of costs as a possible case for oral anticoagulants.

AIMS: The recent publication of two large trials of secondary prevention of coronary artery disease with oral anticoagulants (WARIS and ASPECT) has caused a revival of the interest for this antithrombotic therapy in a clinical setting where the use of aspirin is common medical practice. Despite this, the preferential use of aspirin has been supported by an American cost-effectiveness analysis (JAMA 1995; 273: 965). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the same parameters used in that analysis and incidence of events from the Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration and the ASPECT study, we re-evaluated the economic odds in favor of aspirin or oral anticoagulants in the Italian Health System, which differs significantly in cost allocation from the United States system and is, conversely, similar to other European settings. Recalculated costs associated with each therapy were 2,150 ECU/ patient/year for oral anticoagulants and 2,187 ECU/patient/year for aspirin. In our analysis, the higher costs of oral anticoagulants versus aspirin due to a moderate excess of bleeding (about 10 ECU/ patient/year) and the monitoring of therapy (168 ECU/ patient/year) are more than offset by an alleged savings for recurrent ischemic syndromes and interventional procedures (249 ECU/ patient/year). CONCLUSIONS: Preference of aspirin vs. oral anticoagulants in a pharmaco-economical perspective is highly dependent on the geographical situation whereupon calculations are based. On a pure cost-effectiveness basis, and in the absence of data of direct comparisons between aspirin alone versus I.N.R.-adjusted oral anticoagulants, the latter are not more expensive than aspirin in Italy and, by cost comparisons, in other European countries in the setting of post-myocardial infarction.