Eligibility for Low-Dose Rivaroxaban Based on the COMPASS Trial: Insights from the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: Low-dose rivaroxaban reduced major adverse cardiac and limb events among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease (ASCVD) in the COMPASS trial. The objective of our study was to evaluate the eligibility and budgetary impact of the COMPASS trial in a real-world population. METHODS: The VA administrative and clinical databases were utilized to conduct a cross-sectional study to identify patients eligible for low-dose rivaroxaban receiving care at all 141 facilities between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015. Proportion of patients with stable ASCVD eligible for low-dose rivaroxaban and prevalence of multiple risk enrichment criteria among eligible patients. Pharmaceutical budgetary impact using VA pharmacy pricing. Chi-squared and Student's t tests were used to compare patients eligible versus ineligible patients. RESULTS: From an initial cohort of 1,248,214 patients with ASCVD, 488,495 patients (39.1%) met trial eligibility criteria. Eligible patients were older (74.2 vs 64.5 years) with higher proportion of hypertension (84.1% vs 82.1%) and diabetes (46.2% vs 32.9) compared with ineligible patients (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). A median of 38.7% (IQR 4.6%) of total ASCVD patients per facility were rivaroxaban eligible. Estimated annual VA pharmacy budgetary impact would range from $0.47 billion to $1.88 billion for 25% to 100% treatment penetration. Annual facility level pharmaceutical budgetary impact would be a median of $12.3 million (IQR $8.0-$16.3 million) for treatment of all eligible patients. Among eligible patients, age greater than 65 years was the most common risk enrichment factor (86.9%). Prevalence of eligible patients with multiple enrichment factors varied from 34.2% (one factor) to 6.2% (four or more). CONCLUSION: Over one third of patients with stable ASCVD may qualify for low-dose rivaroxaban within the VA. Additional studies are needed to understand eligibility in other populations and a formal cost-effectiveness analysis is warranted.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in secondary prevention among patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone for patients with stable cardiovascular diseases in the Taiwan setting. METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to project the lifetime direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years of both therapies. Transitional probabilities were derived from the COMPASS trial, and the costs and utilities were obtained from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database and published studies. One-way, scenario, subgroup, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was presented as the outcome. The threshold of willingness-to-pay was set at US$76,368 (3 times the gross domestic product per capita of Taiwan). All analyses were operated by TreeAge 2019 and Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in the patients with stable cardiovascular diseases, coronary artery diseases, and peripheral artery diseases were US$83,459, US$69,852 and -US$13,823 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probabilities of cost-effectiveness for the regimen with rivaroxaban among those with cardiovascular diseases and coronary artery diseases were 44.1% and 65.3% at US$76,368. CONCLUSION: Low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is less likely to be a cost-effective alternative to aspirin in secondary prevention for the patients with stable cardiovascular diseases; however, among these patients, the regimen may have pharmacoeconomic incentives for the group merely having chronic coronary artery diseases from the Taiwan national payer's perspective. The pharmacoeconomic incentives are influenced by the drug price, event treatment fees, and willingness-to-pay threshold.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Dabigatran Compared With Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Stroke and Systemic Embolism in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation in China.

PURPOSE: In China, dabigatran and rivaroxaban are the only approved non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). The goal of this article was to assess the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in Chinese patients with AF from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban. Clinical events were modeled for a lifetime horizon, based on clinical efficacy data from indirect treatment comparisons. The weighted average of the most recent prices of these 2 drugs was used as the drug acquisition cost. Other costs, including follow-up costs and event costs, were collected by using a survey from a panel of local experts. Utility inputs (health state utilities, clinical event disutilities, and event history utility) were obtained from published literature. Sensitivity analyses that included scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to examine the robustness of the economic model. FINDINGS: Over a lifetime, patients treated with dabigatran experienced fewer ischemic strokes (2.14 dabigatran vs 2.61 rivaroxaban) and fewer intracranial hemorrhage (0.48 vs 0.94) per 100 patient-years. In the base case analysis, dabigatran had an incremental cost of ¥28,128 but with higher life years (10.38 vs 10.14) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (7.95 vs 7.70). The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥112,910 per QALY gained and net monetary benefit of ¥12,214 versus rivaroxaban showed that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to rivaroxaban. Extensive sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust over a wide range of inputs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that dabigatran was cost-effective in 84.2% of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations compared with rivaroxaban. IMPLICATIONS: Dabigatran reduced the occurrence of clinical events and increased QALYs compared with rivaroxaban. The use of dabigatran for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism is a cost-effective option compared with rivaroxaban among patients with AF in China.

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.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus apixaban for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism and extended prevention of recurrences in the UK.

Aim: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of using rivaroxaban vs apixaban for the initial treatment plus extended prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the UK. Extended prevention was assessed using a 10-mg rivaroxaban dose, as the 20-mg dose has already been evaluated. Methods: A Markov model compared the health outcomes and costs of treating VTE patient cohorts with either rivaroxaban (15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, followed by 20 mg once daily for 6 months, then extended prevention with 10 mg once daily) or apixaban (10 mg twice daily for 1 week, followed by 5 mg twice daily for 6 months, then extended prevention with 2.5 mg twice daily) over a lifetime horizon. The model included an initial acute treatment and prevention phase (0-6 months) and an extended prevention phase (6-18 months). Efficacy and safety data were derived from two network meta-analyses. Reference treatment comparators were derived from the EINSTEIN-Pooled study and EINSTEIN-CHOICE trial. Healthcare costs and utility data were derived from published literature. Results: The rivaroxaban regimen was associated with increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and slightly lower total costs compared with apixaban over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that rivaroxaban remained a cost-effective alternative to apixaban over a wide range of parameters. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were below the £20,000 per QALY threshold in 74.1% of 2,000 model simulations. Scenario analyses further supported that rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to apixaban. Limitations: Clinical and safety inputs were derived from network meta-analysis, which are subject to inherent limitations whereby small differences between study designs may severely impact efficacy and safety outcomes. Furthermore, these inputs were based on data from clinical trials, which may not reflect real-world data. Conclusions: Rivaroxaban was associated with a slightly lower total cost and increased QALYs compared with apixaban for VTE management in the UK over a lifetime horizon.

Pharmaceutical industry funding of events for healthcare professionals on non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in Australia: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the nature, frequency and content of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-related events for healthcare professionals sponsored by the manufacturers of the NOACs in Australia. A secondary objective is to compare these data to the rate of dispensing of the NOACs in Australia. DESIGN AND SETTING: This cross-sectional study examined consolidated data from publicly available Australian pharmaceutical industry transparency reports from October 2011 to September 2015 on NOAC-related educational events. Data from April 2011 to June 2016 on NOAC dispensing, subsidised under Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), were obtained from the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics of NOAC-related educational events including costs (in Australian dollars, $A), numbers of events, information on healthcare professional attendees and content of events; and NOAC dispensing rates. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 2797 NOAC-related events, costing manufacturers a total of $A10 578 745. Total expenditure for meals and beverages at all events was $A4 238 962. Events were predominantly attended by general practitioners (42%, 1174/2797), cardiologists (35%, 977/2797) and haematologists (23%, 635/2797). About 48% (1347/2797) of events were held in non-clinical settings, mainly restaurants, bars and cafes. Around 55% (1551/2797) of events consisted of either conferences, meetings or seminars. The analysis of the content presented at two events detected promotion of NOACs for unapproved indications, an emphasis on a favourable benefit/harm profile, and that all speakers had close ties with the manufacturers of the NOACs. Following PBS listings relevant to each NOAC, the numbers of events related to that NOAC and the prescribing of that NOAC increased. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the substantial investment in NOAC-related events made by four pharmaceutical companies had a promotional purpose. Healthcare professionals should seek independent information on newly subsidised medicines from, for example, government agencies or drug bulletins.

Cost effectiveness analysis of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) versus dalteparin for the treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: While trials have demonstrated non-inferiority of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOAC) to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT), it is unclear if the newer intervention is cost-effective. METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis using a Markov state-transition model over a time horizon of 60 months in a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with active malignancy and first acute symptomatic CAT who were eligible to receive either rivaroxaban/edoxaban or dalteparin. We obtained transition probability, relative risk, cost, and utility inputs from the literature. We estimated the differential impact on costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of results. RESULTS: Using the base-case analysis over 60 months, DOAC versus dalteparin was associated with an incremental cost reduction of $24,129 with an incremental QALY reduction of 0.04. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the cost of dalteparin contributed the most to the incremental cost difference; relative risk of death related to underlying cancer contributed the most of the incremental QALY difference. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis, with a large reduction in cost but small reduction in QALYs. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban or edoxaban as compared to dalteparin is cost saving from a payer's perspective for the treatment of CAT. Professional organizations and healthcare systems may want to consider this analysis in future practice recommendations.

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.

Rivaroxaban for non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism in the Netherlands: a real-world data based cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been included in international guidelines as important alternatives to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, NOACs are widely used next to VKAs. The objective of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with rivaroxaban compared to VKAs in NVAF and VTE patients in the Netherlands, using data from international prospective observational phase IV studies. METHODS: Two models were developed to represent NVAF and VTE patients, populated with patients from the XANTUS (NCT01606995) and XALIA (NCT01619007) international prospective observational studies. The 1-year cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban use, compared to VKAs, was explored in a population consisting of NVAF and VTE patients (base case) as well as for four scenarios with sub-populations: NVAF patients only, VTE patients only, NVAF patients with unstable international normalized ratio (INR), and NVAF patients using an INR self-measuring device. RESULTS: In the base case, rivaroxaban saved €72,350 and gained 21 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in a simulation of 2,000 patients over the use of VKAs. Ergo, rivaroxaban was dominant over VKAs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a probability of 85% for rivaroxaban being dominant and 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/QALY. Rivaroxaban appeared to be dominant in all scenarios as well, except for the NVAF-patients-only scenario where the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €157/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NVAF or VTE, rivaroxaban treatment is likely to be cost-effective and a potentially cost-saving alternative to VKA in the Netherlands.

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.