The Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Compared with Aspirin Alone in the COMPASS Trial: A US Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg daily was shown to be better than aspirin 100 mg daily for preventing cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with either stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). The cost-effectiveness of this regimen in this population is essential for decision-makers to know. METHODS: US direct healthcare system costs (in USD) were applied to hospitalized events, procedures and study drugs utilized by all patients. We determined the mean cost per participant for the full duration of the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months) plus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime using a two-state Markov model with 1-year cycle length. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the price of rivaroxaban and the annual discontinuation rate. RESULTS: The costs of events and procedures were reduced for Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) patients who received rivaroxaban 2.5 mg orally (BID) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. Total costs were higher for the combination group ($7426 versus $4173) after considering acquisition costs of the study drug. Over a lifetime, patients receiving rivaroxaban plus ASA incurred $27,255 more and gained 1.17 QALYs compared with those receiving ASA alone resulting in an ICER of $23,295/QALY. ICERs for PAD only and polyvascular disease subgroups were lower. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID plus ASA compared with ASA alone was cost-effective (high value) in the USA. COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424.

Burden of oral anticoagulation in embolic stroke of undetermined source without atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: Prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is challenging. The advent of safer anticoagulation in the form of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has prompted exploration of prophylactic anticoagulation for all ESUS patients, rather than anticoagulating just those with documented atrial fibrillation (AF). However, recent trials have failed to demonstrate a clinical benefit, while observing increased bleeding. We modeled the economic impact of anticoagulating ESUS patients without documented AF across multiple geographies. METHODS: CRYSTAL-AF trial data were used to assess ischaemic stroke event rates in ESUS patients confirmed AF-free after long-term monitoring. Anticipated bleeding event rates (including both minor and major bleeds) with aspirin, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg were sourced from published meta-analyses, whilst a 30% ischaemic stroke reduction for both DOACs was assumed. Cost data for clinical events and pharmaceuticals were collected from the local payer perspective. RESULTS: Compared with aspirin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban resulted in 17.9 and 29.9 additional bleeding events per 100 patients over a patient's lifetime, respectively. Despite incorporating into our model the proposed 30% reduction in ischaemic stroke risk, both DOACs were cost-additive over patient lifetime, as the costs of bleeding events and pharmaceuticals outweighed cost savings associated with the reduction in ischaemic strokes. DOACs added £5953-£7018 per patient (UK), €6683-€7368 (Netherlands), €4933-€9378 (Spain), AUD$5353-6539 (Australia) and $26,768-$32,259 (US) of payer cost depending on the agent prescribed. Additionally, in the U.S. patient pharmacy co-payments ranged from $2468-$12,844 depending on agent and patient plan. In all settings, cost-savings could not be demonstrated even when the modelling assumed 100% protection from recurrent ischaemic strokes, due to the very low underlying risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in this population (1.27 per 100 patient-years). CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation of non-AF patients may cause excess bleeds and add substantial costs for uncertain benefits, suggesting a personalised approach to anticoagulation in ESUS patients.

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.

Non-warfarin oral anticoagulant copayments and adherence in atrial fibrillation: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atrial fibrillation, incomplete adherence to anticoagulants increases risk of stroke. Non-warfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are expensive; we evaluated whether higher copayments are associated with lower NOAC adherence. METHODS: Using a national claims database of commercially-insured patients, we performed a cohort study of patients with atrial fibrillation who newly initiated a NOAC from 2012 to 2018. Patients were stratified into low (<$35), medium ($35-$59), or high (≥$60) copayments and propensity-score weighted based on demographics, insurance characteristics, comorbidities, prior health care utilization, calendar year, and the NOAC received. Follow-up was 1 year, with censoring for switching to a different anticoagulant, undergoing an ablation procedure, disenrolling from the insurance plan, or death. The primary outcome was adherence, measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Secondary outcomes included NOAC discontinuation (no refill for 30 days after the end of NOAC supply) and switching anticoagulants. We compared PDC using a Kruskal-Wallis test and rates of discontinuation and switching using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: After weighting patients across the 3 copayment groups, the effective sample size was 17,558 patients, with balance across 50 clinical and demographic covariates (standardized differences <0.1). Mean age was 62 years, 29% of patients were female, and apixaban (43%), and rivaroxaban (38%) were the most common NOACs. Higher copayments were associated with lower adherence (P < .001), with a PDC of 0.82 (Interquartile range [IQR] 0.36-0.98) among those with high copayments, 0.85 (IQR 0.41-0.98) among those with medium copayments, and 0.88 (IQR 0.41-0.99) among those with low copayments. Compared to patients with low copayments, patients with high copayments had higher rates of discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.19; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among atrial fibrillation patients newly initiating NOACs, higher copayments in commercial insurance were associated with lower adherence and higher rates of discontinuation in the first year. Policies to lower or limit cost-sharing of important medications may lead to improved adherence and better outcomes among patients receiving NOACs.

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 antithrombotic agents for atrial fibrillation in older adults at risk for falls: a mathematical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic drugs decrease stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation, but they increase bleeding risk, particularly in older adults at high risk for falls. We aimed to determine the most cost-effective antithrombotic therapy in older adults with atrial fibrillation who are at high risk for falls. METHODS: We conducted a mathematical modelling study from July 2019 to March 2020 based on the Ontario, Canada, health care system. We derived the base-case age, sex and fall risk distribution from a published cohort of older adults at risk for falls, and the bleeding and stroke risk parameters from an atrial fibrillation trial population. Using a probabilistic microsimulation Markov decision model, we calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and edoxaban. Cost data were adjusted for inflation to 2018 values. The analysis used the Ontario public payer perspective with a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: In our model, the most cost-effective antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation in older patients at risk for falls was apixaban, with an ICER of $8517 per QALY gained (5.86 QALYs at $92 056) over ASA. It was a dominant strategy over warfarin and the other antithrombotic agents. There was moderate uncertainty in cost-effectiveness ranking, with apixaban as the preferred choice in 66% of model iterations (given willingness to pay of $50 000 per QALY gained); edoxaban, 30 mg, was preferred in 31% of iterations. Sensitivity analysis across ranges of age, bleeding risk and fall risk still favoured apixaban over the other medications. INTERPRETATION: From a public payer perspective, apixaban is the most cost-effective antithrombotic agent in older adults at high risk for falls. Health care funders should implement strategies to encourage use of the most cost-effective medication in this population.

Multi-Criteria Model for Evaluating Drugs to Prevent Deep Venous Thrombosis Associated With Orthopedic Surgery: A Hospital-Based Case Study.

BACKGROUND: It's estimated that 40% to 60% of patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery of the hip or knee who do not receive thromboprophylaxis will develop deep venous thrombosis Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia has established a guideline to prevent DVT with the administration of the Enoxaparin. Recently, institute stakeholders have been questioning this guideline as new oral anticoagulants that offer more comfort and efficacy, but present higher risk of bleeding, have been appearing in the market for treating deep venous thrombosis. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to validate the application of a multicriteria decision analysis in a real-world problem, the use of rivaroxaban and enoxaparin to prevent deep venous thrombosis. METHODS: The multicriteria method MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique) was used in a decision conferencing process to develop an evaluation model for measuring the relative value of the drugs on each evaluation criterion, separately and globally. The model-building process was informed by a literature review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with a critical appraisal of the evidence. RESULTS: We report a model-structure with eight criteria, each one associated with a weighting coefficient and value function. Following a simple additive aggregation process, the model-outputs showed that Rivaroxaban was considered a robust option for DVT. Sensitivity analysis and robustness analysis were performed and testify the consistency of the results. CONCLUSION: This article contributes to literature by showing how MACBETH method can be combined with scientific evidence and participatory group processes, for health technology assessment in hospitals.

Healthcare costs of NVAF patients treated with rivaroxaban and apixaban in the US.

OBJECTIVES: To provide the most current assessment of real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who newly initiated rivaroxaban and apixaban using a large US database. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective weighted cohort design was used with healthcare insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart databases (January 2012-December 2018). The index date was defined as the first dispensing of rivaroxaban or apixaban. Adult NVAF patients with an index date on or after 1 January 2016, ≥ 12 months of continuous eligibility before the index date and ≥ 1 month after, and without prior use of oral anticoagulant were included. The observation period spanned from the index date to the earliest of the end of data availability, end of insurance coverage, or death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts. All-cause healthcare resource utilization (HRU), including hospitalization, emergency room, and outpatient visits, and healthcare costs, including medical and pharmacy costs, were evaluated from the payer's perspective during the observation period up to 18 and 24 months, separately. RESULTS: In total, 23,822 rivaroxaban and 53,666 apixaban users were included. After weighting, all baseline characteristics were well balanced between cohorts (mean age: 73.8 years, female: 46.6% in both cohorts). Up to 18 months of follow-up, rivaroxaban users incurred significantly lower total healthcare costs compared to apixaban users (cost difference = -$1,121; p = 0.020), driven by significantly lower rates of outpatient hospital visits and associated costs (cost difference = -$1,579; p < 0.001). Similar results were found in the analysis conducted for up to 24 months of follow-up (total cost difference = ‒$1,111; p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: In this large retrospective analysis, patients with NVAF initiated on rivaroxaban incurred significantly lower healthcare costs compared to those initiated on apixaban, which were primarily driven by significantly lower outpatient visits and costs during the 18- and 24-month follow-up periods.

Economic Evaluation of Rivaroxaban Versus Enoxaparin for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism After Total Knee Replacement and Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) together are called venous thromboembolism (VTE) and impose a high economic burden on healthcare systems. Thousands of people are hospitalized annually due to benign and treatable diseases but die due to PE; with the adoption of appropriate prevention, these deaths can be prevented. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of using rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin in published economic analyses for prevention of VTE after total knee (TKR) or hip replacement (THR). METHOD: In a systematic review electronic searches were performed on various online databases, including PubMed, Web of science, Embase, Scopus, Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED), and ProQuest. The inclusion criteria were: studies that were conducted on the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE after TKR and THR; cost-effectiveness studies conducted using decision analysis models based on the economic evaluation approach; studies with available full-text papers; and studies written in English and published between 2007 and 2019. The exclusion criteria were: studies with partial cost effectiveness (such as effectiveness assessment, cost assessment, quality-of-life assessment); studies written in languages other than English; and all protocols, conference abstracts, and letters to the editor. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to qualitatively evaluate the studies. RESULTS: Of a total of 537 initial studies, nine papers met the inclusion criteria. The time scope of studies ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Among the selected studies, some studies had included discount rates (n = 4) and the other studies did not utilize discount rates and were set to zero percent by default (n = 5). In all studies, direct medical costs, including costs related to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE and PE, and management and monitoring of treatment costs were reviewed. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review showed that using rivaroxaban in patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement reduced costs and increased quality of life. However, since most of the studies had been conducted in developed countries, it is not possible to generalize the results to developing countries. Nonetheless, given that rivaroxaban is administered orally and does not require continuous monitoring, it will be less costly for patients and health systems and is more appropriate to administer it as a thromboprophylactic drug following total knee or hip replacement surgery.

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.

Should Health Economic Evaluations Undertaken from a Societal Perspective Include Net Government Spending Multiplier Effects?

The fiscal multiplier represents the ratio of the change in national income to an associated increase in government spending. Fiscal multiplier effects are commonly estimated to justify options for government spending. Multiplier effects are not considered in economic evaluations of healthcare, but alternate forms of healthcare spending are expected to have varying multiplier effects. This paper describes the estimation and application of net government spending multiplier effects to two published economic evaluations. Negative net multiplier effects are estimated for an evaluated pharmaceutical for the treatment of stable cardiovascular disease, with a resulting increase in the published incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from AU$31,244 to 47,311. Positive net multiplier effects are estimated for an evaluated healthcare delivery model for frail older people, with a resulting decrease in the published incremental cost per QALY gained from AU$8129 to 7669. The inclusion of net multiplier effects in economic evaluations undertaken from a societal perspective can have important effects on the estimated value of evaluated health technologies and services. The potential for government spending on healthcare to crowd out existing spending is considered low, but further investigation of crowding-out effects is warranted.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the Japanese healthcare setting.

Aims: This article aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban in comparison to warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), from a public healthcare payer's perspective.Materials and methods: Baseline event risks were obtained from the J-ROCKET AF trial and the treatment effect data were taken from a network meta-analysis. The other model inputs were extracted from the literature and official Japanese sources. The outcomes included the number of ischaemic strokes, myocardial infarctions, systemic embolisms and bleedings avoided, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The scenario analysis considered treatment effect data from the same network meta-analysis.Results: In comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban was estimated to avoid 0.284 ischaemic strokes per patient, to increase the number of QALYs by 0.535 per patient and to decrease the total costs by ¥118,892 (€1,011.11) per patient (1 JPY = 0.00850638 EUR; XE.com, 7 October 2019). Consequently, rivaroxaban treatment was found to be dominant compared to warfarin. In the scenario analysis, the ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was ¥2,873,499 (€24,446.42) per QALY.Limitations: The various sources of data used resulted in the heterogeneity of the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Although, rivaroxaban was cost-effective in the majority of cases.Conclusion: Rivaroxaban is cost-effective against warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with NVAF, giving the payer WTP of 5,000,000 JPY.

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.