Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban Compared with Other Therapies Used in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease Undergoing Peripheral Revascularization: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The guidelines on antithrombotic treatment in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing peripheral revascularization of the lower extremities were developed based on heterogeneous trials, assessing various dose regimens and recruiting patients who were subjected to different revascularization procedures. OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and safety of treatments used in patients with PAD undergoing peripheral revascularization accounting for between-trial heterogeneity and large dispersion of the quality of evidence. METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adult patients with PAD receiving antithrombotics was conducted until January 2020. Hazard ratios (HR) were pooled using Bayesian network meta-analysis. The estimated between-treatment effects were presented as HR together with 95% credible intervals. The base case analysis included studies recruiting patients following recent peripheral revascularization, who received treatment regimens administered within the recommended therapeutic window, while a sensitivity scenario included all identified trials. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were identified (8 RCTs enrolled patients following peripheral revascularization and 5 RCTs regardless of the previous revascularization). Five trials, recruiting an overall of 8349 patients, were considered for the base case analysis. Of those, 6564 patients were recruited in the VOYAGER PAD trial comparing rivaroxaban plus aspirin (RIV plus ASA) versus ASA. RIV plus ASA was associated with a lower risk of repeated peripheral revascularization versus ASA monotherapy (HR = 0.88 [0.79, 0.99]), however having a trend towards an increased rate of major bleeding (HR = 1.43 [0.98, 2.11]). There was no evidence for differences between RIV plus ASA and dual antiplatelet therapy and vitamin K antagonists plus ASA. Similar results were observed in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: RIV plus ASA is associated with reduced risk of revascularization compared with ASA monotherapy, but the evidence for other comparators, in particular antiplatelet regimens, was insufficient to guide treatment decisions and highlights the challenge in establishing the magnitude of comparative efficacy using existing RCTs.

Use of real-world evidence in meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness models.

Real-world evidence (RWE) provides external validity, supplementing and enhancing the randomized controlled trial data with valuable information on patient behaviors and outcomes, turning efficacy and safety results into real-world effectiveness and risks, but the use of RWE is associated with challenges. The objectives of this communication were to (1) summarize all guidance on how to conduct an RWE meta-analysis (MA) and how to develop an RWE cost-effectiveness model, (2) to describe our experience, challenges faced and solutions identified, (3) to provide recommendations on how to conduct such analyses. No formal guidelines on how to conduct an RWE MA or to develop an RWE cost-effectiveness model were identified. Using the context of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, we conducted an RWE MA, after having identified sources of uncertainty. We then implemented the results in an RWE cost-effectiveness model, defined as a model where all inputs come from RWE, including all parameters related to treatment effect. Based on challenges faced, our first recommendation relates to the necessity of conducting sensitivity analyses, either based on clinical or methodological considerations. Our second recommendation is the need for extensive collaboration with a wide range of experts, during the development of the analyses protocols, the implementation of the analyses and the interpretation of the results. RWE may address a number of gaps related to the treatment effect, and RWE economic evaluations for the treatment effect can provide extremely valuable insights into real-world economic value of interventions. As the increased recognition of the value of RWE could influence health technology assessment decision, and current practices, this communication supports the urgent need of more formal guidelines.

Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary and Peripheral Artery Disease Antithrombotic Treatments in Finland.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, 15-20% of individuals with coronary artery disease (chronic coronary syndrome [CCS]) or peripheral artery disease (PAD) receiving routine treatment experience cardiovascular events (CVEs) within 3-4 years. Using PICOSTEPS (Patients-Intervention-Comparators-Outcomes-Setting-Time-Effects-Perspective-Sensitivity analysis) reporting, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of recently approved rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily in combination with acetylsalicylic acid 100 mg daily (RIV + ASA) for the prevention of CVEs among Finns with CCS or symptomatic PAD. METHODS: Myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, acute limb ischemia, amputations, major extracranial bleeding, venous thromboembolism, and cardiovascular deaths were modeled in a Markov model examining a cohort of patients with CCS or symptomatic PAD. Relative effects of the intervention (RIV + ASA) and comparator (ASA) were based on the COMPASS trial. The primary outcome was 3%/year discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as cost (2019 euros) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in the Finnish setting over a lifetime horizon. In addition to nonfatal and fatal CVEs, the effects factored Finnish non-CVE mortality, quality of life, and direct costs from a public payer perspective. Disaggregated costs and QALYs, costs per life year gained (LYG), and ischemic strokes avoided, net monetary benefit (NMB), expected value of perfect information (EVPI), economic value-added (EVA), cost-effectiveness table, and acceptability frontier were examined. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In the deterministic comparison with ASA over a lifetime horizon, RIV + ASA resulted in a benefit of 0.404 QALYs and 0.474 LYGs for an additional cost of €3241, resulting in an ICER of €8031/QALY. The probabilistic ICER was €4313/QALY (EVPI €1829/patient). RIV + ASA had positive NMB (€8791/patient), low EVPI (€88/patient), high EVA (€8703/patient), and 91% probability of cost-effectiveness using the willingness-to-pay of €25,254/QALY. The primary result was conservative and robust for RIV + ASA. CONCLUSION: RIV + ASA was a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with ASA in patients with CCS or symptomatic PAD in Finland.

Finland lacks published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of approved interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular events among individuals with chronic coronary syndrome (stable coronary artery disease) or symptomatic peripheral artery disease at risk of cardiovascular complications. Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus acetylsalicylic acid 100 mg once daily is indicated and reimbursed in Finland for the prevention of cardiovascular events for patients with stable coronary artery disease or symptomatic peripheral artery disease. We assessed the effectiveness and costs of treatment with rivaroxaban plus acetylsalicylic acid in comparison with treatment with acetylsalicylic acid. That is, we examined whether rivaroxaban is cost-effective when prescribed in combination with acetylsalicylic acid.Cardiovascular events with their associated costs and impact on quality of life were modeled over the lifetime of patients. The main effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (modeled survival multiplied by the expected quality of life), and costs included those relevant to the Finnish public payer in 2019. Extensive sensitivity analyses were carried out to evaluate the impacts of different model inputs and rationale.Rivaroxaban plus acetylsalicylic acid had high probability of being cost-effective, compared with acetylsalicylic acid. By valuing quality-of-life benefit with a plausible willingness-to-pay, net cost savings of €8791 per patient could be gained or economic value added by €8703 per patient if rivaroxaban was used.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with vitamin K antagonists in the context of stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in France.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban, versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) from a French national health insurance perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with a lifetime horizon and cycle length of 3 months. All inputs were drawn from real-world evidence (RWE) studies: data on baseline patient characteristics at model entry were obtained from a French RWE study, clinical event rates as well as persistence rates for the VKA treatment arm were estimated from a variety of RWE studies, and a meta-analysis provided comparative effectiveness for rivaroxaban compared to VKA. Model outcomes included costs (drug costs, clinical event costs, and VKA monitoring costs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and life-years (LY) gained, incremental cost per QALY, and incremental cost per LY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model and to better understand the results drivers. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the incremental total cost was €714 and the total incremental QALYs and LYs were 0.12 and 0.16, respectively. The resulting incremental cost/QALY and incremental cost/LY were €6,006 and €4,586, respectively. The results were more sensitive to the inclusion of treatment-specific utility decrements and clinical event rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no official willingness-to-pay threshold in France, these results suggest that rivaroxaban is likely to be cost-effective compared to VKA in French patients with AF from a national insurance perspective.

Health economic evaluation of rivaroxaban in the treatment of patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease.

AIMS: In the COMPASS trial, rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (bid) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 100 mg once daily (od) performed better than ASA 100 mg od alone in reducing the rate of cardiovascular disease, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban plus ASA vs. ASA alone over a lifetime horizon, from the UK National Health System perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: The base case analysis assumed that patients entered the model in the event-free health state, with the possibility to experience ≤2 events, transitioning every three-month cycle, through acute and post-acute health states of MI, ischaemic stroke (IS), or intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), and death. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life years-all discounted at 3.5%-and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, as well as scenario analyses. In the model, patients on rivaroxaban plus ASA lived for an average of 14.0 years with no IS/MI/ICH, and gained 9.7 QALYs at a cost of £13 947, while those receiving ASA alone lived for an average of 12.7 years and gained 9.3 QALYs at a cost of £8126. The ICER was £16 360 per QALY. This treatment was cost-effective in 98% of 5000 iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: This Markov model suggests that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bid plus ASA is a cost-effective alternative to ASA alone in patients with chronic CAD or PAD.

Impact of methodological choices on a meta-analysis of real-world evidence comparing non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of methodological choices in a meta-analysis of real-world evidence (RWE) comparing three non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Methods: The meta-analysis was based on a systematic review of RWE studies enrolling incident and prevalent patients aged ≥18 years with NVAF and receiving either rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban or a VKA. Five different scenarios were considered to explore the impact of the initial meta-analysis assumptions: (1) using studies that involved only incident patients; (2) excluding studies that only reported crude values and did not consider any adjustment; (3) including all studies independently of possible database overlap; (4) using studies with data on different dosages for rivaroxaban and dabigatran; and (5) assigning quality weights to studies to assess quality of reporting. These scenarios were run on three outcomes: ischemic stroke (IS), myocardial infarction (MI) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Results: Across all scenarios, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly lower risks of IS and ICH than VKAs. In most scenarios, dabigatran was associated with significantly lower risks of IS and ICH. In all scenarios, apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of ICH. Conclusions: Sensitivity analyses showed the impact of similar assumptions was different depending on the outcome and the drug considered. The development of recommendations and guidelines for the inclusion of RWE in meta-analyses could prove useful in evaluating the effectiveness of health care interventions.

Real-world clinical evidence on rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban compared with vitamin K antagonists in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Several comparative real-world effectiveness studies on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been conducted, but an overview of the available evidence remains to be developed, which could provide a better understanding of the value of DOACs relative to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). AREAS COVERED: A systematic literature review was conducted on the available real-world evidence (RWE) of three DOACs (rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban) compared with VKAs (e.g. warfarin), in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).This systematic literature review included RWE published up to December 2016. Studies with > 50 patients reporting on incident and prevalent NVAF cases were included. The following databases were searched: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Outcomes of interest included thromboembolic events, all-cause mortality, bleeding events, and nonpersistence. Of the 562 RWE DOACs articles retrieved, 49 presented results for rivaroxaban versus VKAs, 79 for dabigatran versus VKAs, and 18 for apixaban versus VKAs. Substantial heterogeneity was found across patient population, outcome definition, and follow-up period. Major bleeding, ischemic stroke, and intracranial hemorrhage were the most frequent outcomes analyzed. EXPERT COMMENTARY: Overall, the RWE studies were aligned with the Phase 3 trials. However, conflicting results were reported for several outcomes of interest.