Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with chronic kidney disease in China.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: In non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), rivaroxaban was not inferior to warfarin in preventing stroke and systemic embolism. However, a comparative evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban and warfarin therapies for NVAF patients at different renal function levels has not yet been reported, and this study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in Chinese NVAF patients with CKD. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs associated with the use of rivaroxaban relative to warfarin in patients with NVAF at different estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) levels as follows: 30 to <50, 50 to <80 and ≥80 mL/min. Input parameters were sourced from the clinical literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model uncertainty. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The incrementalQALYs with rivaroxaban was slightly increased by approximately 0.3 QALY as compared with that with warfarin in all the subgroups, resulting in an ICER of $9,736/QALY (eGFR, 30 to <50 mL/min), $9,758/QALY (50 to <80 mL/min) and $9,969/QALY (≥80 mL/min). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested a chance of >80% that the ICER would be lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of three times the GDP of China in 2019 in all the subgroups. Results were consistent even under the assumption of anticoagulant discontinuation after major bleeding events. The model was most sensitive to event-free-related utility and survival rates. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The existing evidence supports the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban therapy as an alternative anticoagulant to warfarin for patients with NVAF at different renal function levels.

Comparison of Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs between Rivaroxaban and Warfarin for Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation in a Skilled Nursing Facility Setting.

BACKGROUND: Use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) is increasing. Rivaroxaban is commonly used in this setting as an alternative to warfarin, based on comparable or increased efficacy in preventing stroke and a similar or lower risk of major bleeding. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between NVAF patients receiving rivaroxaban or warfarin in SNFs. METHODS: This retrospective study examined de-identified claims from Optum® Clinformatics® Extended Data Mart (1 January 2013-31 December 2017). Eligible patients had an AF diagnosis, were prescribed rivaroxaban or warfarin during an SNF stay, and had one or more such prescriptions filled in the 6 months preceding the stay. Patients were excluded if they received another oral anticoagulant or had evidence of valvular heart disease, mitral stenosis, or organ/tissue transplant. HCRU, mean number of events, and all-cause healthcare costs during the index SNF stay were reported. Results were also reported on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis. Exploratory analyses at different time periods were also conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 4423 rivaroxaban patients and 22,796 warfarin patients were identified prior to inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. Index SNF stay was significantly shorter among rivaroxaban-treated patients (35.8 ± 35.8 days) versus warfarin (40.1 ± 46.3 days; p < 0.0001). During the SNF stay, overall HCRU was lower for the rivaroxaban cohort versus the warfarin cohort. All-cause total costs were significantly reduced for rivaroxaban ($6450 ± $10,379) versus warfarin ($7640 ± $16,556; p < 0.0001), and similar results were observed when calculated on a PPPM basis. During the 1-year post-index period, PPPM all-cause total costs were significantly lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin ($4135 vs. $4561; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In this SNF setting, HCRU and costs were lower among patients with NVAF who were experienced users of rivaroxaban compared with those who were experienced users of warfarin. These findings may help inform clinical decision making to reduce the economic burden of NVAF among older adults in SNFs.

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin treatment among morbidly obese patients with venous thromboembolism: Comparative effectiveness, safety, and costs.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data exist on direct-acting oral anticoagulants in morbidly obese patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). We compared clinical and health/economic outcomes with rivaroxaban versus warfarin for VTE treatment in morbidly obese patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective 1:1 propensity score matched cohort study analyzed data from 2 US claims databases. VTE patients initiating rivaroxaban or warfarin were identified who had diagnosis codes for morbid obesity (ICD-9:278.01,V85.4; ICD-10:E66.01,E66.2,Z68.4) 12 months pre- or 3 months post-initiation and followed ≥3 months. Intent-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment (OT) analyses were conducted using conditional logistic regression and generalized linear models to compare recurrent VTE and major bleeding risks, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and per patient per year (PPPY) costs. RESULTS: In total, 2890 matched pairs of morbidly obese VTE patients initiating rivaroxaban or warfarin were identified. Risks of recurrent VTE (ITT: OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.85-1.14) and major bleeding (OT: OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.47-1.19) were similar for cohorts. Anti-Factor Xa laboratory measurement was performed on <1% of rivaroxaban cohort. Hospitalizations (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77-0.96) and outpatient visits (OR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.10-0.56), were lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin (ITT analysis). Average total medical costs PPPY were $2829 lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin ($34,824 vs $37,653), mainly driven by hospitalization costs. Total healthcare costs (including pharmacy) were similar ($43,034 vs $44,565). CONCLUSIONS: Morbidly obese VTE patients receiving rivaroxaban had similar risks of recurrent VTE and major bleeding versus warfarin. Rivaroxaban treatment yielded significantly less HRU and total medical costs, with similar total healthcare costs between groups.

Comparative effectiveness, safety, and costs of rivaroxaban and warfarin among morbidly obese patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are morbidly obese (body mass index >40 kg/m2 or body weight >120 kg). METHODS: Using data from 2 US healthcare claims databases, we identified patients initiating rivaroxaban or warfarin who had ≥1 medical claim with an AF diagnosis, a diagnostic code for morbid obesity (ICD-9: 278.01, V85.4%; ICD-10: E66.01%, E66.2%, Z68.4%), and a minimum continuous enrollment of 12 months before and 3 months after treatment initiation. Patients were excluded if they had mitral stenosis, a mechanical heart valve procedure, an organ/tissue transplant, or an oral anticoagulant prescription prior to the index date. Rivaroxaban and warfarin patients were 1:1 propensity score matched. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding risk. Generalized linear models were used to compare healthcare resource utilization and costs. RESULTS: A total of 3563 matched pairs of morbidly obese AF patients treated with rivaroxaban or warfarin were identified. The majority (81.4%) of patients in the rivaroxaban cohort were receiving the 20 mg dose. The rivaroxaban and warfarin cohorts were well balanced after propensity score matching. The risks of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were similar for rivaroxaban and warfarin users (stroke/systemic embolism: 1.5% vs 1.7%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60, 1.28; P = .5028; major bleeding: 2.2% vs 2.7%; OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.08; P = .1447). Total healthcare costs including medication costs per patient per year (PPPY) were significantly lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin ($48,552 vs $52,418; P = .0025), which was primarily driven by lower hospitalization rate (50.2% vs 54.1%; P = .0008), shorter length of stay (7.5 vs 9.1 days; P = .0010), and less outpatient service utilization (86 vs 115 visits PPPY; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Morbidly obese AF patients treated with rivaroxaban had comparable risk of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding as those treated with warfarin, but lower healthcare resource utilization and costs.

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.

Policy Change for Deep Vein Thrombosis: Effects on Length of Stay and Hospitalization Costs of Moving From Warfarin to Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

PURPOSE: Renown Health (Reno, Nevada), a large, locally owned, not-for-profit integrated health care network, has developed an institution-wide policy to shift the treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) from a short-acting anticoagulant and vitamin K antagonist to the direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban combined with pharmacy-directed follow-up at an outpatient anticoagulation clinic. We examined data on hospitalizations and costs pre-/post-policy change. METHODS: Data were obtained from the electronic health records of adults with newly diagnosed DVT treated at Renown Health. A quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate patients who received a DVT diagnosis before versus after the policy change. Primary outcomes were number of all-cause inpatient nights at 30 and 60 days post-DVT index date. Secondary outcomes were costs of all-cause overnight stays at 30 and 60 days post-DVT index. Outcomes were evaluated in propensity-weighted logistic regression and generalized linear models. FINDINGS: There were 343 patients pre-policy change and 266 post-policy change. In the first 30 days postindex, the mean (95% CI) numbers of propensity-weighted all-cause inpatient nights were 1.27 (0.83-1.95) prechange and 0.66 (0.42-1.02) postchange (P = 0.038). Mean propensity-weighted estimated all-cause hospital costs in patients diagnosed as outpatients were $7848 ($4990-$12,344) prechange and $2466 ($1553-$3915) postchange (P <0.001). Mean costs of all-cause overnight stays in inpatient-diagnosed DVT patients were $8907 prechange and $7449 postchange (P = 0.600). In the first 60 days postindex, the mean number of all-cause inpatient nights (P = 0.219) and mean costs of all-cause overnight stays (P = 0.275) were not significantly different before and after the policy change. IMPLICATIONS: Changing institutional policy to increase the utilization of a direct oral anticoagulant and pharmacist-led outpatient anticoagulation clinics may reduce length of hospital stay and decrease health care expenditures in the treatment of DVT.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in patients with worsening renal function.

BACKGROUND: Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is highly prevalent and increases the risks of cardiovascular events. In a recent subgroup analysis, treatment response was shown to vary for patients exhibiting worsening renal function (WRF) on-treatment. It is important to understand the cost-effectiveness of novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) use in this population. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using a Markov model to determine whether NOAC rivaroxaban treatment is cost-effective relative to warfarin in NVAF patients with on-treatment WRF. Input parameters were sourced from clinical literature including a multicenter clinical trial and subgroup analysis. We studied elderly US male patients at increased risk for stroke (CHADS2 score ≥ 2) undergoing treatment for NVAF and exhibiting WRF. Main outcome measures included total healthcare costs in 2017 US dollars (societal perspective), total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) per-patient. RESULTS: The remaining lifetime use of rivaroxaban is associated with 5.69 QALYs at a cost of $66,075 per patient, while warfarin produced 5.22 QALYs with costs of $78,504 per patient. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $150,000 per QALY, incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) per patient are $83,590. In our population, treatment with warfarin was dominated by rivaroxaban in 99.4% of 10,000 simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban is likely a dominant treatment over warfarin in elderly US male NVAF patients exhibiting WRF, providing increased QALYs at a decreased overall cost. Application of these findings may require healthcare providers to predict which patients are likely to exhibit WRF.

Cost Implications of Anticoagulation Strategies After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (A PIONEER-AF PCI Analysis).

The PIONEER AF-PCI trial demonstrated that in atrial fibrillation patients who underwent intracoronary stenting, either rivaroxaban 15 mg daily plus P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (Group 1) or 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (Group 2) was associated with fewer recurrent hospitalizations, primarily for bleeding and cardiovascular events, compared with standard-of-care vitamin K antagonist and DAPT (Group 3). Associated costs are unknown. This study estimates costs associated with rivaroxaban strategies compared with vitamin K antagonist and DAPT. Medication costs were estimated using wholesale acquisition costs, medication discontinuation rates, and costs of monitoring. Using a large US healthcare claims database, the mean adjusted increase in 1-year cost of care for individuals with atrial fibrillation and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) rehospitalized for bleeding, cardiovascular, and other events was compared with those not rehospitalized. Using adjudicated rehospitalization rates from PIONEER AF-PCI, cost differences were estimated. Rates of rehospitalization for bleeding were 6.5%, 5.4%, 10.5%, and 20.3%, 20.3%, 28.4% for cardiovascular events in Groups 1, 2, and 3. Medication and monitoring costs were $3,942, $4,115, and $1,703. One-year costs for all recurrent hospitalization costs and/or patient for the groups were $24,535, $20,205, and $29,756. One-year cost increase associated with bleeding rehospitalizations and/or patient was $4,160, $3,212, and $6,876 and was $13,264, $11,545, and $17,220 for cardiovascular rehospitalizations and/or patient. Overall estimated cost per patient was $28,476, $24,320, and $31,458. Compared with warfarin, both rivaroxaban treatment strategies had higher medication costs, but these were more than accounted for by fewer hospitalizations.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Thai Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation and a High Risk of Bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of direct-acting oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in Thai patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and a HAS-BLED score of 3. METHODS: Total costs (US$) in 2017 and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated over 20 years using a Markov model. A base-case analysis was conducted under a societal perspective, which included direct healthcare, non-healthcare and indirect costs in Thailand. Clinical events for warfarin and utilities were obtained from Thai patients whenever possible. The efficacy of direct-acting oral anticoagulants was derived from trial-based East Asian subgroups and adjusted for time in the target international normalized ratio range of warfarin. RESULTS: In the base case, use of apixaban instead of warfarin incurred an additional cost of US$20,763 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Substituting apixaban with rivaroxaban and rivaroxaban with high-dose edoxaban would incur an additional cost per quality-adjusted life-year by US$507 and US$434, respectively. Compared with warfarin, high-dose edoxaban had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$9704/quality-adjusted life-year, followed by high-dose dabigatran (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio US$11,155/quality-adjusted life-year). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on a payer perspective were similar. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below Thailand's cost-effectiveness threshold when high-dose dabigatran and edoxaban prices were reduced by 50%. Changes in key parameters had a minimal impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSIONS: For both societal and payer perspectives, high-dose edoxaban with a price below the country cost-effectiveness threshold should be the first anticoagulant option for Thai patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and a high risk of bleeding.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Overall Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban in Patients with Pulmonary Embolism.

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

The cost of warfarin treatment for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Russia from a collective perspective.

AIMS: Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are used for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), but necessitate regular monitoring of prothrombin time via international normalized ratio (INR) testing. This study explores the economic burden of VKA therapy for Russian patients with NVAF. METHOD: Cardiologists provided clinical characteristics and healthcare resource use data relating to the patient's first year of treatment. Data were used to quantify direct medical costs (INR testing, consultations, drug costs). The same patients completed a questionnaire providing data on direct non-medical costs (travel/expenses for attendance at VKA appointments) and indirect costs (opportunity cost and reduced work productivity). Mean costs per patient per year are described (US dollars). RESULTS: Cardiologists (n = 50) provided data on 400 patients (mean age = 63, 47% female), and 351 patients (88%) completed the patient questionnaire. Patients had a mean of nine INR tests. Estimated direct medical costs totaled $151.06, and 18.5% of direct medical costs were attributable to drug costs. Estimated annual direct non-medical costs were $22.89 per patient, and indirect costs were $275.59 per patient. LIMITATIONS: Included patients had been treated for 12-24 months, so are not fully representative of the broader treatment population. CONCLUSION: Although VKA drugs costs are relatively low, regular INR testing and consultations drive the economic burden for Russian NVAF patients treated with VKA.

Shortened hospital length of stay and lower costs associated with rivaroxaban in patients with pulmonary embolism managed as observation status.

BACKGROUND: Unlike rivaroxaban, treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) with warfarin requires parenteral bridging and coagulation monitoring that may prolong length-of-stay (LOS) and increase hospital costs. AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare LOS, hospital costs and readmissions in PE patients managed through observation stays treated with rivaroxaban or parenterally bridged warfarin. METHODS: Premier Hospital claims data from November 2012 to March 2015 were used to identify patients with a primary diagnosis code for PE managed through an observation stay and with ≥1 claim for a PE-related diagnostic test on day 0-2. Rivaroxaban users, allowing ≤2 days of prior parenteral therapy, were 1:1 propensity-score matched to patients receiving parenterally bridged warfarin. LOS, the proportion of encounters lasting >2 midnights, total hospital costs of the index visit and risk of readmission for venous thromboembolism (VTE) or major bleeding during the same month or 2 months subsequent to the index event were compared between matched cohorts using multivariable regression. RESULTS: A total of 312 rivaroxaban users were matched to 312 patients receiving parenterally bridged warfarin. Rivaroxaban was associated with an average of 0.27-day shorter LOS, a 52% decreased odds of an encounter lasting >2 midnights and a $403 mean reduction in costs vs parenterally bridged warfarin (P≤.002 for all). The readmission rate for VTE during the same or subsequent 2 months following the index PE was similar between cohorts (P=.75). No patient in either cohort was readmitted for major bleeding. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban was associated with shortened LOS and lowered cost vs parenterally bridged warfarin in PE observation stay patients, without increases in the short-term rate of complications or readmission.

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.