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.

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.

[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.

Health and cost consequences of early versus late invasive strategy after thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction.

UNLABELLED: The NORwegian study on DIstrict treatment of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction showed an improved clinical outcome with early transfer for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to a more conservative approach after thrombolysis. The aim of this substudy was to compare the 12-month quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs of these alternative strategies. METHODS: Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction <6 h duration and >90 min expected delay to PCI, received full-dose tenecteplase and were randomized to either early or late invasive strategy (n = 266). Detailed quality of life and resource use data were registered prospectively for a period of 12 months. Health outcomes were measured as quality of life using a generic instrument (15D). Quality of life scores were translated into QALYs. Unit costs were based on hospital accounts, fee schedules, and market prices. RESULTS: After 12 months of follow-up, patients in the early invasive group had 0.008 (95% CI -0.027 to 0.043) more QALYs compared to the late invasive group. The mean total costs were €18,201 in the early versus €17,643 in the late invasive group, with a mean difference of €558 (95% CI -2258 to 3484). Cost/QALY was €69,750 while cost/avoided clinical endpoint was €5636. CONCLUSION: Early and late invasive strategies after thrombolysis resulted in similar quality of life and similar costs in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients living far from a PCI centre (NCT00161005).

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin reduces the risk for ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) but increases the risk for hemorrhage. Dabigatran is a fixed-dose, oral direct thrombin inhibitor with similar or reduced rates of ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage in patients with AF compared with those of warfarin. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the quality-adjusted survival, costs, and cost-effectiveness of dabigatran compared with adjusted-dose warfarin for preventing ischemic stroke in patients 65 years or older with nonvalvular AF. DESIGN: Markov decision model. DATA SOURCES: The RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy) trial and other published studies of anticoagulation. The cost of dabigatran was estimated on the basis of pricing in the United Kingdom. TARGET POPULATION: Patients aged 65 years or older with nonvalvular AF and risk factors for stroke (CHADS2 score ≥1 or equivalent) and no contraindications to anticoagulation. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Warfarin anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0); dabigatran, 110 mg twice daily (low dose); and dabigatran, 150 mg twice daily (high dose). OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (in 2008 U.S. dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The quality-adjusted life expectancy was 10.28 QALYs with warfarin, 10.70 QALYs with low-dose dabigatran, and 10.84 QALYs with high-dose dabigatran. Total costs were $143 193 for warfarin, $164 576 for low-dose dabigatran, and $168 398 for high-dose dabigatran. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with warfarin were $51 229 per QALY for low-dose dabigatran and $45 372 per QALY for high-dose dabigatran. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The model was sensitive to the cost of dabigatran but was relatively insensitive to other model inputs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio increased to $50 000 per QALY at a cost of $13.70 per day for high-dose dabigatran but remained less than $85 000 per QALY over the full range of model inputs evaluated. The cost-effectiveness of high-dose dabigatran improved with increasing risk for stroke and intracranial hemorrhage. LIMITATION: Event rates were largely derived from a single randomized clinical trial and extrapolated to a 35-year time frame from clinical trials with approximately 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: In patients aged 65 years or older with nonvalvular AF at increased risk for stroke (CHADS2 score ≥1 or equivalent), dabigatran may be a cost-effective alternative to warfarin depending on pricing in the United States. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American Heart Association and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Service.

Indications for thrombolysis in deep venous thrombosis.

OBJECTIVES: Deep venous thromboses (DVTs) are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the general and inpatient population. Current anticoagulation therapy is efficient in reducing thrombus propagation but does not contribute to clot lysis or prevention of post-thrombotic limb syndrome. Catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) is an alternative method for treating DVTs but there is no consensus regarding indications for its use. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Cochrane library were searched for all articles on deep vein thrombosis and thrombolysis. REVIEW METHOD: Articles presenting data on DVT thrombolysis, DVT anticoagulation, mechanical thrombectomy, venous stenting and May-Thurner's syndrome were considered for inclusion in the review. RESULTS: CDT reduced clot burden, DVT recurrence and may prevent the formation of post-thrombotic syndrome. Indications for its use include younger individuals with a long life expectancy and few co-morbidities, limb-threatening thromboses and proximal ilio-femoral DVTs. There is a marked lack of randomised controlled trials comparing CDT-related mortality and long term outcomes compared to anticoagulation alone. The effectiveness of combined pharmaco-mechanic thrombectomy, although promising, need to be further investigated, as is the role of caval filters in preventing DVT-associated pulmonary emboli. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the outcome of CDT in DVT management are encouraging in selected patient cohorts, but further evidence is required to establish longer term benefits and cost-effectiveness.

Cost-minimization analysis of low-molecular-weight heparin (dalteparin) compared to unfractionated heparin for inpatient treatment of cancer patients with deep venous thrombosis.

GOALS: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has shown to be as effective as unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Although the acquisition cost of LMWH is significantly greater than that of UFH, we hypothesized that once-daily dalteparin, a LMWH, could reduce treatment costs of cancer patients with DVT by eliminating anticoagulation monitoring and shortening hospitalization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a cost-minimization model by using outcomes and resource utilization data from two retrospective matched cohorts of cancer patients who, between 1994 and 1999, were hospitalized at our comprehensive cancer center for treatment of DVT with either LMWH ( n=21) or UFH ( n=168). We assumed all LMWHs and UFH to be equally effective. The total costs for the dalteparin strategy and the UFH strategy were calculated in year 2003 U.S. dollars, from the provider's perspective, by multiplying the number of resources used for inpatient treatment of DVT by their unit costs. RESULTS: The mean total cost for inpatient care was $3,383 US dollars (95% CI= $2,683- $4,083) for dalteparin and $4,952 US dollars (95% CI=$4,718-$5,185) for UFH. Substantial savings resulted from shorter hospitalization among the dalteparin-treated patients (mean 3.19 versus 5.22 days). Sensitivity analysis did not change the conclusion that dalteparin is less expensive than UFH. CONCLUSIONS: Savings realized from less anticoagulant monitoring and shorter hospitalization offset the higher acquisition cost of dalteparin. The dalteparin strategy is less expensive than the UFH strategy for the inpatient treatment of DVT among cancer patients.

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.

Outcomes management for stroke patients using thrombolytics.

In the current health care market, there is a sharp awareness by both consumers and managed care providers that hospitals are only as good as the outcomes they can produce. Collaboration among disciplines that provide services, in this case treatment for stroke has enhanced patient outcomes. The synergy that has developed among those involved has thus far created a win-win situation. The key to successful outcomes is to have all those involved possessing a clear picture of their role, accepting it, and taking ownership of it.