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.

Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization and costs in heavy menstrual bleeding: a Japanese claims database analysis.

AIMS: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a highly prevalent condition, characterized by excessive menstrual blood loss and cramping, that interferes with activities of daily life. The aim of this study was to investigate treatment patterns in HMB in Japan, and to assess healthcare resource utilization and costs among women newly-diagnosed with the condition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed health insurance data available in the Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC) database on women aged 18-49 years who were newly-diagnosed with primary or secondary HMB. Treatment patterns were analyzed, and healthcare utilization and costs were evaluated and compared to matched controls. RESULTS: The study included a total of 635 patients, 210 with primary HMB and 425 with secondary HMB. In the primary HMB cohort, 60.0% of patients received one or more pharmacological or surgical treatments, compared with 76.2% in the secondary HMB cohort. The most commonly prescribed medications in all patients were hemostatic agents (28.7%), traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) (12.1%), and low-dose estrogen progestins (LEPs) (10.1%). After adjustment for patient baseline characteristics, healthcare costs were 1.93-times higher in primary HMB cases (p < .0001) and 4.44-times higher in secondary HMB cases (p < .0001) vs healthy controls. Outpatient care was the main cost driver. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations of this study are related to its retrospective nature, and the fact that only reimbursed medications were captured in the source database. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of HMB patients did not receive the recommended treatments. Healthcare costs were considerably increased in the presence of an HMB diagnosis.

Evaluation of the treatment patterns and economic burden of dysmenorrhea in Japanese women, using a claims database.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe treatment patterns and estimate health care resource utilization and associated costs among Japanese women with dysmenorrhea, using a claims database. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis using health insurance data from the Japan Medical Data Center, assessing female patients aged 18-49 years with newly diagnosed primary or secondary dysmenorrhea. Treatment pattern analyses focused on hormonal medications, analgesics, hemostatic agents, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and gynecological surgeries. Data were collected on health care resource utilization and costs associated with medications, imaging procedures, and inpatient and outpatient care in both patients and matched controls. RESULTS: The analysis included 6,315 women with dysmenorrhea (3,441 primary; 2,874 secondary). The most commonly prescribed initial therapies were low-dose estrogen progestins (LEPs, 37.7%) and TCM (30.0%), with substantial differences between primary (LEPs: 27.4%, TCM: 38.8%) and secondary (LEPs: 50.2%, TCM: 19.5%) dysmenorrhea cohorts. Surgery was conducted in <5% of all patients. Both primary and secondary cohorts of dysmenorrhea had significantly higher mean total health care costs compared to controls within the 1-year period following diagnosis (Case-primary: 191,680 JPY [1,916 USD]; secondary: 246,488 JPY [2,465 USD], Control-primary: 83,615 JPY [836 USD]; secondary: 90,711 JPY [907 USD]) (p<0.0001). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, these costs were 2.2 and 2.9 times higher for primary and secondary dysmenorrhea cohorts, respectively, compared with matched controls, (both p<0.0001). The main driver of these excess costs was outpatient care, with eight additional physician visits per year among dysmenorrhea patients compared to controls (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Considerable heterogeneity in treatment patterns was observed, with relatively low utilization of LEPs in patients with primary dysmenorrhea and those treated by internal medicine physicians. Total annual health care costs were approximately 2-3 times higher in patients with dysmenorrhea compared to women without the condition.