Avoiding the needle: A quality improvement program introducing apixaban for extended thromboprophylaxis after major gynecologic cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery at our centre are recommended up to 28 days of enoxaparin for extended post-operative thromboprophylaxis (EP). Baseline survey revealed 92% patient adherence, but highlighted negative effects on patient experience due to the injectable route of administration. We aimed to improve patient experience by reducing pain and bruising by 50%, increasing adherence by 5%, and reducing out-of-pocket cost after introducing apixaban as an oral alternative for EP. METHODS: In this interrupted time series quality improvement study, gynecologic cancer patients were offered a choice between apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily) or enoxaparin (40 mg subcutaneously once daily) at time of discharge. A multidisciplinary team informed project design, implementation, and evaluation. Process interventions included standardized orders, patient and care team education programs. Telephone survey at 1 and 6 weeks and chart audit informed outcome, process, and balancing measures. RESULTS: From August to October 2022, 127 consecutive patients were included. Apixaban was chosen by 84%. Survey response rate was 74%. Patients who chose apixaban reported significantly reduced pain, bruising, increased confidence with administration, and less negative impact of the medication (p < 0.0001 for all). Adherence was unchanged (92%). The proportion of patients paying less than $125 (apixaban cost threshold) increased from 45% to 91%. There was no difference in bleeding and no VTE events. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of apixaban for EP was associated with significant improvement in patient-reported quality measures and reduced financial toxicity with no effect on adherence or balancing measures. Apixaban is the preferred anticoagulant for EP at our centre.

Not all cost conversations are the same: An exploration of potential value in cost conversations during Atrial fibrillation treatment decision making.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the cost conversations taking place when patients with atrial fibrillation and their clinicians decide on whether and how to use anticoagulation to prevent strokes. METHODS: Secondary qualitative thematic analysis of conversations from 476 clinical encounters in three sites of a multicenter randomized trial comparing usual care with and without a shared decision-making tool. RESULTS: We identified three themes with subthemes: (1) What was discussed: conversation content (2) How content was transmitted: communication patterns and (3) Implicit conversation drivers. Due to each patient's unique circumstances, bi-directional conversations focused on relationship- and solution-based content enabled better cost burden discovery. Conversation drivers included affordability, comorbidities, preferences, and uncertainty about future costs. CONCLUSIONS: Cost conversations were often initiated by clinicians, and if they did not invite a response, patients passively received information without understanding or weighing cost burden. When clinicians discussed cost information using relational or solution-focused content and bi-directional communication patients were more likely to engage in discussion including their unique situation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Solution-focused cost conversations can reduce financial treatment burden, but require estimates of out-of-pocket costs, insurance coverage, and long-term financial effects of various options. Conversation tools and information on financial resources are valuable to patients and clinicians.

Estimating the economic effect of harm associated with high risk prescribing of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in England: population based cohort and economic modelling study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify prevalence, harms, and NHS costs in England of problematic oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing in high risk groups. DESIGN: Population based cohort and economic modelling study. SETTING: Economic models estimating patient harm associated with NSAID specific hazardous prescribing events, and cost to the English NHS, over a 10 year period, were combined with trends of hazardous prescribing event to estimate national levels of patient harm and NHS costs. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were prescribed oral NSAIDs and were in five high risk groups: older adults (≥65 years) with no gastroprotection; people who concurrently took oral anticoagulants; or those with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or a history of peptic ulcer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of hazardous prescribing events, by each event and overall, discounted quality adjusted life years (QALYs) lost, and cost to the NHS in England of managing harm. RESULTS: QALY losses and cost increases were observed for each hazardous prescribing event (v no hazardous prescribing event). Mean QALYs per person were between 0.01 (95% credibility interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.02) lower with history of peptic ulcer, to 0.11 (0.04 to 0.19) lower with chronic kidney disease. Mean cost increases ranged from a non-statistically significant £14 (€17; $18) (95% CI -£71 to £98) in heart failure, to a statistically significant £1097 (£236 to £2542) in people concurrently taking anticoagulants. Prevalence of hazardous prescribing events per 1000 patients ranged from 0.11 in people who have had a peptic ulcer to 1.70 in older adults. Nationally, the most common hazardous prescribing event (older adults with no gastroprotection) resulted in 1929 (1416 to 2452) QALYs lost, costing £2.46m (£0.65m to £4.68m). The greatest impact was in people concurrently taking oral anticoagulants: 2143 (894 to 4073) QALYs lost, costing £25.41m (£5.25m to £60.01m). Over 10 years, total QALYs lost were estimated to be 6335 (4471 to 8658) and an NHS cost for England of £31.43m (£9.28m to £67.11m). CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs continue to be a source of avoidable harm and healthcare cost in these five high risk populations, especially in inducing an acute event in people with chronic condition and people taking oral anticoagulants.

Adherence to oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: the role of patients' characteristics and out-of-pocket payments.

BACKGROUND: Recent practice guidelines favor direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) over warfarin for primary stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). However, challenges persist in Iraq's private pharmaceutical sector. DOACs have been sold at high and inconsistent retail prices and lack insurance coverage, leading to significant out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of OOP costs on oral anticoagulants (OAC) adherence among NVAF patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This multicenter cross-sectional study interviewed 359 eligible patients attending three private cardiology clinics within Iraq's southern region from December 2022 to February 2023. The 8-item Morisky Adherence Scale evaluated patient adherence. Statistical analyses, including descriptive analysis, ANOVA, and chi-square. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The most frequently prescribed OAC were DOACs (62.8%). Patient adherence level to OAC was chiefly medium (54.6%) with no significant difference in adherence based on OAC type. Patient adherence was significantly associated with monthly income (p = 0.001), number of daily pills (p = 0.006), and OACs' average monthly cost (p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Addressing the issue of cost-related non-adherence to OACs requires multiple actions. These include ensuring comprehensive health insurance coverage for OACs, increasing the use of affordable generic alternatives, and establishing effective cost-related discussions between healthcare providers and patients.

Early experience of using regional citrate anticoagulation for continuous renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients in a resource-limited setting.

AIM: Despite the superiority of regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), its application is limited in resource-limited settings. We aim to explore the cost and safety of RCA for CRRT in critically ill patients, compared to usual care. METHODS: This prospective observational study included patients requiring CRRT in a tertiary intensive care unit (ICU) from February 2022 to January 2023. They were classified to either the RCA or usual care groups based on the anticoagulation technique chosen by the treating physician, considering contraindications. The CRRT prescription follows the institutional protocol. All relevant data were obtained from the ICU CRRT-RCA charts and electronic medical records. A cost analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients (27 per group) were included, with no demographic differences. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and lactate levels were significantly higher in the usual care group. The number of filters used were comparable (p = .108). The median filter duration in the RCA group was numerically longer (35.00 [15.50-56.00] vs. 23.00 [17.00-29.00] h), but not statistically significant (p = .253). The duration of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor requirement, and mortality were similar, but the RCA group had a significantly longer ICU stay. The rate of adverse events was similar, with four severe metabolic alkalosis cases in the RCA group. The RCA group had higher total cost per patient per day (USD 611 vs. 408; p = .013). CONCLUSION: In this resource-limited setting, RCA for CRRT appeared safe and had clinically longer filter lifespan compared with usual care, albeit the increased cost.

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis of Apixaban and Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) in Iran.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of Apixaban and Rivaroxaban, compared to Warfarin, for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Iran. METHOD: A Markov model with a 30-year time horizon was employed to simulate and assess different treatment strategies' cost-effectiveness. The study population comprised Iranian adults with NVAF, identified through specialist consultations, hospital visits, and archival record reviews. Direct medical costs, direct nonmedical, and indirect costs were included. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were assessed using an EQ-5D questionnaire. This study utilized a cost-effectiveness threshold of $11 134 per QALY. RESULTS: Apixaban demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness compared to Rivaroxaban and Warfarin. Over 30 years, total costs were lower in the Apixaban and Rivaroxaban groups compared to the Warfarin group ($126.18 and $109.99 vs. $150.49). However, Apixaban showed higher total QALYs gained compared to others (0.134 vs. 0.133 and 0.116). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for comparing Apixaban to Warfarin was calculated at -1332.83 cost per QALY, below the threshold of $11 134, indicating Apixaban's cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings, with ICER consistently remaining below the threshold. Over 5 years (2024-2028) of Apixaban usage, the incremental cost starts at USD 70 250 296 in the first year and gradually rises to USD 71 770 662 in the fifth year. DSA and PSA were assessed to prove the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: This study shows that Apixaban is a cost-effective option for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in Iran compared to Warfarin.

Clinical and economic implications of false-positive heparin-induced thrombocytopenia immunoassays: utility of the 4T score.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a prothrombotic condition induced by platelet-activating IgG antibodies that recognize PF4/heparin complexes. Diagnosis of HIT relies on enzyme immunologic assays (EIAs) and functional assays [serotonin release assay (SRA)]. Our institution uses a latex immunoturbidimetric assay (LIA), which has shown a positive-predictive value (PPV) of 55.6%, and a negative-predictive value (NPV) of 99.7%. The low PPV of EIAs/LIAs, in combination with the clinical delay in obtaining results of a SRA, commonly leads to a false-positive diagnosis of HIT and inappropriate treatment. We performed a single-institution retrospective study at a large tertiary center to assess patient management decisions and economic costs following a false-positive HIT (LIA) test. This study found an 89.5% incidence of false-positive HIT (LIA) tests. 97.4% of patients underwent anticoagulation changes. 69.6% of patients were switched to argatroban. Of patients with a false-positive HIT immunoassay (LIA), 42 (40.7%) patients were on a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation at the time of HIT (LIA) positivity, of which 22 (52.4%) were switched to full anticoagulation with either argatroban or fondaparinux. Of the 22 patients switched to full anticoagulation, 15 (68%) had low-probability 4T scores. Seven (8.8%) of patients had bleeding events after HIT (LIA) positivity. All seven patients were switched to argatroban from a full-dose heparin anticoagulation. Five of the seven patients were considered major bleeds. Utilization of argatroban incurred substantial costs, estimated at approximately $73 000 for false-positive HIT cases. False-positive HIT (LIA) tests contribute to unwarranted anticoagulation changes, increased bleeding risks, and substantial healthcare costs. Incorporating the 4T score into diagnostic algorithms may help mitigate these risks by guiding appropriate clinical decisions. Future research should focus on refining diagnostic approaches and standardizing management strategies to improve patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness in HIT diagnosis and management.

Employing Real-World Evidence for the Economic Evaluation of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in comparison with warfarin using data from real practice based on the perspective of the health care system in Thailand. METHODS: A four-state Markov model encompassing well-controlled atrial fibrillation (AF), stroke and systemic embolism, major bleeding and death was utilised to forecast clinical and economic outcomes. Transitional probabilities, direct medical costs and utilities were derived from the real-world data of the 'COOL-AF Thailand' registry, Thailand's largest nationwide registry spanning 27 hospitals. The cohort comprised AF patients. The primary outcomes assessed were total costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. All costs and outcomes were subject to an annual discount rate of 3.0%. A spectrum of sensitivity analyses was conducted. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 68.8 ± 10.7 years. The NOACs group incurred a marginally lower total lifetime cost than the warfarin group (247,857 Thai baht [THB] vs 253,654 THB or 7137 USD vs 7304 USD) and experienced gains of 0.045 life years and 0.043 QALYs over the warfarin group. Given the lower cost and higher benefits associated with NOACs, this implies that NOAC treatment is a dominant strategy compared to warfarin for AF patients. At a ceiling ratio of 160,000 THB (4607 USD) per QALY, NOACs presented a 61.2% probability of being cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants represent a cost-saving alternative to warfarin in the real clinical practice. However, with a probability of being cost effective below 65%, it suggests some parameter uncertainty regarding their overall cost effectiveness compared to warfarin.

Cost-effectiveness of enoxaparin versus aspirin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee arthroplasty: an analysis from the CRISTAL cluster-randomized trial.

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the healthcare costs and benefits of enoxaparin compared to aspirin in the prevention of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using data from the CRISTAL trial. Methods: This trial-based economic analysis reports value for money as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in 2022 Australian dollars, compared to a single threshold value of AUD$70,000 per QALY. Event costs were estimated based on occurrence of VTEs and bleeds, and on published guidelines for treatment. Unit costs were taken from Australian sources. QALYs were estimated using CRISTAL six-month follow-up data. Sensitivity analyses are presented that vary the cost of VTE treatment, and extend the analyses to two years. Results: The CRISTAL trial found that enoxaparin was more effective than aspirin in preventing symptomatic VTE within 90 days of THA or TKA (risk difference 1.97% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54% to 3.41%; p = 0.007)). The additional cost after a THA or TKA was AUD$83 (95% CI 68 to 97) for enoxaparin, and enoxaparin resulted in an additional 0.002 QALYs (95% CI -0.002 to 0.005). Incremental cost per QALY gained was AUD$50,567 (95% CI 15,513, dominated) for enoxaparin. We can be 60% confident that the incremental cost per QALY does not exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD$70,000. Increasing the cost of VTE treatment and extension of costs and consequences to two years suggested greater confidence that enoxaparin is good value for money (70% and 63% confidence, respectively). Conclusion: This analysis provides strong evidence that enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis following THA or TKA reduced VTEs, but weak evidence of net economic benefits over aspirin. If the value of avoiding VTEs is high, and there is a strong likelihood of VTE-related health impairments, we can be more confident that enoxaparin is cost-effective compared to aspirin.

Coordination of oral anticoagulant care at hospital discharge (COACHeD): pilot randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether a focused, expert medication management intervention is feasible and potentially effective in preventing anticoagulation-related adverse events for patients transitioning from hospital to home. DESIGN: Randomised, parallel design. SETTING: Medical wards at six hospital sites in southern Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Adults 18 years of age or older being discharged to home on an oral anticoagulant (OAC) to be taken for at least 4 weeks. INTERVENTIONS: Clinical pharmacologist-led intervention, including a detailed discharge medication management plan, a circle of care handover and early postdischarge virtual check-up visits to 1 month with 3-month follow-up. The control group received the usual care. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Primary outcomes were study feasibility outcomes (recruitment, retention and cost per patient). Secondary outcomes included adverse anticoagulant safety events composite, quality of transitional care, quality of life, anticoagulant knowledge, satisfaction with care, problems with medications and health resource utilisation. RESULTS: Extensive periods of restriction of recruitment plus difficulties accessing patients at the time of discharge negatively impacted feasibility, especially cost per patient recruited. Of 845 patients screened, 167 were eligible and 56 were randomised. The mean age (±SD) was 71.2±12.5 years, 42.9% females, with two lost to follow-up. Intervention patients were more likely to rate their ability to manage their OAC as improved (17/27 (63.0%) vs 7/22 (31.8%), OR 3.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 12.0)) and their continuity of care as improved (21/27 (77.8%) vs 2/22 (9.1%), OR 35.0 (95% CI 6.3 to 194.2)). Fewer intervention patients were taking one or more inappropriate medications (7 (22.5%) vs 15 (60%), OR 0.19 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.62)). CONCLUSION: This pilot randomised controlled trial suggests that a transitional care intervention at hospital discharge for older adults taking OACs was well received and potentially effective for some surrogate outcomes, but overly costly to proceed to a definitive large trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02777047.

Effectiveness, utilisation and cost associated with implantable loop recorders versus external monitors after ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke.

OBJECTIVE: Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) are increasingly used for long-term rhythm monitoring after ischaemic and cryptogenic stroke, with the goal of detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) and subsequent initiation of oral anticoagulation to reduce risk of adverse clinical outcomes. There is a need to determine the effectiveness of different rhythm monitoring strategies in this context. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of individuals with commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance in Optum Labs Data Warehouse who had incident ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke and no prior cardiovascular implantable electronic device from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2021. Patients were stratified by rhythm monitoring strategy: ILR, long-term continuous external cardiac monitor (>48 hours to 30 days) or Holter monitor (≤48 hours). The primary outcome was risk-adjusted all-cause mortality at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included new diagnosis of AF and oral anticoagulation, bleeding, and costs. RESULTS: Among 48 901 patients with ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke, 9235 received an ILR, 29 103 long-term continuous external monitor and 10 563 Holter monitor only. Mean age was 69.9 (SD 11.9) years and 53.5% were female. During the 12-month follow-up period, patients who received ILRs compared with those who received long-term continuous external monitors had a higher odds of new diagnosis of AF and oral anticoagulant initiation (adjusted OR 2.27, 95% CI 2.09 to 2.48). Compared with patients who received long-term continuous external monitors, those who received ILRs had similar 12-month mortality (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12), with approximately $13 000 higher costs at baseline (including monitor cost) and $2500 higher costs during 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this large real-world study of patients with ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke, ILR placement resulted in more diagnosis of AF and initiation of oral anticoagulation, but no difference in mortality compared with long-term continuous external monitors.

Evaluation of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospital inpatients: the VTEAM evidence synthesis.

Background: Pharmacological prophylaxis during hospital admission can reduce the risk of acquired blood clots (venous thromboembolism) but may cause complications, such as bleeding. Using a risk assessment model to predict the risk of blood clots could facilitate selection of patients for prophylaxis and optimise the balance of benefits, risks and costs. Objectives: We aimed to identify validated risk assessment models and estimate their prognostic accuracy, evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for selecting hospitalised patients for prophylaxis, assess the feasibility of using efficient research methods and estimate key parameters for future research. Design: We undertook a systematic review, decision-analytic modelling and observational cohort study conducted in accordance with Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines. Setting: NHS hospitals, with primary data collection at four sites. Participants: Medical and surgical hospital inpatients, excluding paediatric, critical care and pregnancy-related admissions. Interventions: Prophylaxis for all patients, none and according to selected risk assessment models. Main outcome measures: Model accuracy for predicting blood clots, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with alternative strategies, accuracy of efficient methods for identifying key outcomes and proportion of inpatients recommended prophylaxis using different models. Results: We identified 24 validated risk assessment models, but low-quality heterogeneous data suggested weak accuracy for prediction of blood clots and generally high risk of bias in all studies. Decision-analytic modelling showed that pharmacological prophylaxis for all eligible is generally more cost-effective than model-based strategies for both medical and surgical inpatients, when valuing a quality-adjusted life-year at £20,000. The findings were more sensitive to uncertainties in the surgical population; strategies using risk assessment models were more cost-effective if the model was assumed to have a very high sensitivity, or the long-term risks of post-thrombotic complications were lower. Efficient methods using routine data did not accurately identify blood clots or bleeding events and several pre-specified feasibility criteria were not met. Theoretical prophylaxis rates across an inpatient cohort based on existing risk assessment models ranged from 13% to 91%. Limitations: Existing studies may underestimate the accuracy of risk assessment models, leading to underestimation of their cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness findings do not apply to patients with an increased risk of bleeding. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis options were excluded from the modelling. Primary data collection was predominately retrospective, risking case ascertainment bias. Conclusions: Thromboprophylaxis for all patients appears to be generally more cost-effective than using a risk assessment model, in hospitalised patients at low risk of bleeding. To be cost-effective, any risk assessment model would need to be highly sensitive. Current evidence on risk assessment models is at high risk of bias and our findings should be interpreted in this context. We were unable to demonstrate the feasibility of using efficient methods to accurately detect relevant outcomes for future research. Future work: Further research should evaluate routine prophylaxis strategies for all eligible hospitalised patients. Models that could accurately identify individuals at very low risk of blood clots (who could discontinue prophylaxis) warrant further evaluation. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165778 and Researchregistry5216. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127454) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People who are admitted to hospital are at risk of blood clots that can cause serious illness or death. Patients are often given low doses of blood-thinning drugs to reduce this risk. However, these drugs can cause side effects, such as bleeding. Hospitals currently use complex risk assessment models (risk scores, which usually include patient, disease, mobility and intervention factors) to determine the individual risk of blood clots and identify people most likely to benefit from blood-thinning drugs. There are a lot of different risk scores and we do not know which one is best. We also do not know how these scores compare to each other or whether using scores to decide who should get blood-thinning drugs provides good value for money to the NHS. We reviewed all previous studies of risk scores. We found that they did not predict blood clots very well and we could not recommend one score over another. We then created a mathematical model to simulate the use of blood-thinning drugs in people admitted to hospital. The model suggested that giving blood-thinning drugs to everyone who could have them would probably provide the best value for money, in medical patients. Our findings were the same, but less certain, for surgical patients. We also collected information from four NHS hospitals to explore possibilities for future research. Our work showed that routinely collected electronic data on blood clots and bleeding events is not very accurate and that using different scores could result in variable use of blood-thinning medications. Our findings suggest that it may be better value to the NHS and better for patients if we were to offer blood-thinning medications to everyone on admission to hospital, without using any risk score. However, this approach needs further research to ensure it is safe and effective. Such research would not be able to rely on routine electronic data to identify blood clots or bleeding events, in isolation.

Trends in Oral Anticoagulant Use and Individual Expenditures Across the United States from 2014 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Landmark clinical trials have expended the indications for the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), but contemporary data on usage and expenditure patterns are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess annual trends in oral anticoagulant (OAC) utilization and expenditure across the United States (US) from 2014 to 2020. METHODS: We utilized the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to study the trends of use and expenditures of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban between 2014 and 2020 in the US. Survey respondents reported OAC use within the past year, which was verified against pharmacy records. Payment information was obtained from the respondent's pharmacy and was categorized as third-party or self/out-of-pocket. Potential indications and medical conditions of interest for OAC therapy were identified from respondent-reported medical conditions. We estimated the national number of OAC users and total expenditures across age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, and medical condition subgroups. Trends of OAC users' characteristics, expenditure, and number of prescriptions were evaluated using the Mann-Kendall test for trends. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2020, the number of warfarin users decreased from 3.8 million (70% of all OAC users) to 2.2 million (p = 0.007) [29% of all OAC users], while the number of DOAC users increased from 1.6 million (30% of all OAC users) to 5.4 million (p = 0.003) [70% of all OAC users]. The total expenditure of OACs in the US increased from $3.4 billion in 2014 to $17.8 billion in 2020 (p = 0.003), which was driven by the increase in DOAC expenditures (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: DOACs have replaced warfarin as the preferred OAC in the US. The increased costs associated with DOAC use may decline when generic formulations are approved.

Pharmacogenetic guided versus standard warfarin dosing for routine clinical care with its pharmacoeconomic impact: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Empirical use of pharmacogenetic test(PGT) is advocated for many drugs, and resource-rich setting hospitals are using the same commonly. The clinical translation of pharmacogenetic tests in terms of cost and clinical utility is yet to be examined in hospitals of low middle income countries (LMICs). AIM: The present study assessed the clinical utility of PGT by comparing the pharmacogenetically(PGT) guided- versus standard of care(SOC)- warfarin therapy, including the health economics of the two warfarin therapies. METHODS: An open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial recruited warfarin-receiving patients in pharmacogenetically(PGT) guided- versus standard of care(SOC)- study arms. Pharmacogenetic analysis of CYP2C9*2(rs1799853), CYP2C9*3(rs1057910) and VKORC1(rs9923231) was performed for patients recruited to the PGT-guided arm. PT(Prothrombin Time)-INR(international normalized ratio) testing and dose titrations were allowed as per routine clinical practice. The primary endpoint was the percent time spent in the therapeutic INR range(TTR) during the 90-day observation period. Secondary endpoints were time to reach therapeutic INR(TRT), the proportion of adverse events, and economic comparison between two modes of therapy in a Markov model built for the commonest warfarin indication- atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: The study enrolled 168 patients, 84 in each arm. Per-protocol analysis showed a significantly high median time spent in therapeutic INR in the genotype-guided arm(42.85%; CI 21.4-66.75) as compared to the SOC arm(8.8%; CI 0-27.2)(p < 0.00001). The TRT was less in the PG-guided warfarin dosing group than the standard-of-care dosing warfarin group (17.85 vs. 33.92 days) (p = 0.002). Bleeding and thromboembolic events were similar in the two study groups. Lifetime expenditure was ₹1,26,830 in the PGT arm compared to ₹1,17,907 in the SOC arm. The QALY gain did not differ in the two groups(3.9 vs. 3.65). Compared to SOC, the incremental cost-utility ratio was ₹35,962 per QALY gain with PGT test opting. In deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the base case results were found to be insensitive to the variation in model parameters. In the cost-effectiveness-acceptability curve analysis, a 90% probability of cost-effectiveness was reached at a willingness-to-pay(WTP) of ₹ 71,630 well below one time GDP threshold of WTP used. CONCLUSION: Clinical efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of the warfarin pharmacogenetic test suggest its routine use as a point of care investigation for patient care in LMICs.

Thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the puerperium: a systematic review and economic evaluation to estimate the value of future research.

Background: Pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is currently recommended for women assessed as being at high risk of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy or in the 6 weeks after delivery (the puerperium). The decision to provide thromboprophylaxis involves weighing the benefits, harms and costs, which vary according to the individual's venous thromboembolism risk. It is unclear whether the United Kingdom's current risk stratification approach could be improved by further research. Objectives: To quantify the current decision uncertainty associated with selecting women who are pregnant or in the puerperium for thromboprophylaxis and to estimate the value of one or more potential future studies that would reduce that uncertainty, while being feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians. Methods: A decision-analytic model was developed which was informed by a systematic review of risk assessment models to predict venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. Expected value of perfect information analysis was used to determine which factors are associated with high decision uncertainty and should be the target of future research. To find out whether future studies would be acceptable and feasible, we held workshops with women who have experienced a blood clot or have been offered blood-thinning drugs and surveyed healthcare professionals. Expected value of sample information analysis was used to estimate the value of potential future research studies. Results: The systematic review included 17 studies, comprising 19 unique externally validated risk assessment models and 1 internally validated model. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable ranging from 0% to 100% and 5% to 100%, respectively. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns. The decision analysis found that there is substantial decision uncertainty regarding the use of risk assessment models to select high-risk women for antepartum prophylaxis and obese postpartum women for postpartum prophylaxis. The main source of decision uncertainty was uncertainty around the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis for preventing venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. We found that a randomised controlled trial of thromboprophylaxis in obese postpartum women is likely to have substantial value and is more likely to be acceptable and feasible than a trial recruiting women who have had a previous venous thromboembolism. In unselected postpartum women and women following caesarean section, the poor performance of risk assessment models meant that offering prophylaxis based on these models had less favourable cost effectiveness with lower decision uncertainty. Limitations: The performance of the risk assessment model for obese postpartum women has not been externally validated. Conclusions: Future research should focus on estimating the efficacy of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy and the puerperium, and clinical trials would be more acceptable in women who have not had a previous venous thromboembolism. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020221094. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131021) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Women who are pregnant or who have given birth in the previous 6 weeks are at increased risk of developing blood clots that can cause serious illness or death. Small doses of blood thinners given by injection are safe in pregnancy and can reduce the risk of blood clots, but they can slightly increase the risk of bleeding. Healthcare professionals use risk assessment tools to decide if a woman is at high risk of blood clots and should be offered blood thinners. We wanted to find out what research would be useful to help them make better decisions. We reviewed previous research to establish which risk assessment tools are best at predicting who will have a blood clot. We then created a mathematical model to predict what would happen when using different risk assessment tools to decide who should be offered blood thinners, both during pregnancy and after giving birth. We found that there was a lot of uncertainty about which women should be offered blood thinners. This was mainly because there have only been a few small studies comparing blood thinners to no treatment in pregnant women or women who have recently given birth. We estimated the value of future studies comparing blood thinners to no treatment, in groups of women with different risk factors, by predicting what information we would gain and how this would be used to improve decisions about using blood thinners. To find out whether these studies would be acceptable and feasible, we held workshops with women who have experienced a blood clot or have been offered blood thinners and surveyed healthcare professionals. We found that a study in obese women who have recently given birth would have substantial value and may be more acceptable than a study in pregnant women with a previous blood clot.

Payer approval and rejection of oral anticoagulant prescriptions and prescription abandonment patterns among patients with venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major public health condition that renders patients at risk of recurrent events, which significantly increases their morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Apart from warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants, such as apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban, are approved for VTE treatment. Cardiovascular drugs are largely impacted by formulary restrictions; however, the impact on oral anticoagulants (including warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants) in VTE has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To describe the extent of payer-rejected claims for oral anticoagulants for VTE and the factors associated with rejected claims. Prescription abandonment of oral anticoagulants and the time to an eventual fill for oral anticoagulant after rejection or abandonment were also evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients with VTE newly prescribed an oral anticoagulant (first claim was the index) between October 2016 and October 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the proportion of patients with paid (ie, filled), rejected, or abandoned index oral anticoagulant prescription and journey to paid prescription among those with initial rejection. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with initial rejection. RESULTS: Among the overall sample (N = 297,312), 74.3% had initial oral anticoagulant prescriptions approved, 9.1% had them rejected, and 16.7% abandoned them. Of the patients with initial rejection, 82.1% eventually filled their oral anticoagulant prescriptions; however, for 14.2% of these patients, the first fill was for an oral anticoagulant other than that initially prescribed. The mean time to a first fill for an oral anticoagulant after an initial rejection was 18.3 days. More than half of the patients with an initial rejected oral anticoagulant claim had at least 1 additional rejection during the follow-up period. Of the patients who abandoned their initial oral anticoagulant prescription, 83.9% filled an oral anticoagulant prescription during follow-up; the mean time to fill for the index oral anticoagulant was 15.6 days. Oral anticoagulant type, Medicare payer coverage, prescribing physician specialty, and VTE diagnosis setting of care were significantly associated with index oral anticoagulant claim rejection (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Rejection and abandonment may delay access to oral anticoagulant treatment. Factors contributing to these scenarios should be understood and addressed for proper VTE management.

Methods for Economic Evaluations of Novel Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a severe epidemiological and public health concern among the elderly population worldwide, with substantial economic and social burdens. Economic evaluations can play an essential role in optimizing the utilization of scarce resources. In recent years, the number of economic evaluation studies related to AF has increased due to the rising number of AF patients, the continuous updating of clinical data, and the emergence of real-world evidence. However, there are still deficiencies in model settings and parameter sources in relevant studies. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review the existing economic evaluations of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with AF and summarize the evidence and methods applied. METHODS: A comprehensive and systematic search was conducted on electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (WOS), and The Cochrane Library, from the date of database creation to November 2022. The reporting quality of included literature was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement. RESULTS: A total of 102 studies were included in the review, with 200 comparisons between NOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), as well as 58 comparisons between different NOACs. The healthcare sector and payer perspectives were the most common, and accordingly, the majority of the evaluations considered only direct medical costs. Most studies used Markov cohort models with the number of health states ranging from 4 to 29. Of included studies, 80 (78%) considered event recurrence and complications, and 78 (76%) considered discontinuation and second-line therapy. All of the studies applied uncertainty analysis to explore the robustness of the results. Of all 200 NOACs-VKAs comparisons, 149 (75%) showed that NOACs were more cost-effective; this proportion was 84% (139 out of 165) in high-income countries but decreased to 29% (10 out of 35) in middle- and low-income countries. Most (82%) of the 28 items in the CHEERS 2022 checklist were elucidated in the majority of included studies. A minority (only 39%) of included studies demonstrated high reporting quality. CONCLUSION: NOACs may be more cost-effective than VKAs in patients with AF, but this conclusion applies to high-income countries, whereas VKAs may be more cost-effective in middle- and low-income countries. The reporting quality of included studies was variable, and certain methodological issues were presented. This study highlights the economic evaluation methodology of NOACs in patients with AF and provides recommendations for modeling methods and future studies.

Prophylactic anticoagulation after minimally invasive hysterectomy for endometrial cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine our institutional rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer and to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of extended prophylactic anticoagulation after minimally invasive staging surgery for endometrial cancer. METHODS: All patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer who underwent minimally invasive staging surgery from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2020 were identified retrospectively, and clinicopathologic and outcome data were obtained through chart review. Event probabilities and utility decrements were obtained through published clinical data and literature review. A decision model was created to compare 28 days of no post-operative pharmacologic prophylaxis, prophylactic enoxaparin, and prophylactic apixaban. Outcomes included no complications, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and major bleeding. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Three of 844 patients (0.36%) had a VTE following minimally invasive staging surgery for endometrial cancer. In this model, no pharmacologic prophylaxis was less costly and more effective than prophylactic apixaban and prophylactic enoxaparin over all parameters examined. When all patients were assigned prophylaxis, prophylactic apixaban was both less costly and more effective than prophylactic enoxaparin. If the risk of DVT was ≥4.8%, prophylactic apixaban was favored over no pharmacologic prophylaxis. On Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis for the base case scenario, no pharmacologic prophylaxis was favored in 41.1% of iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: In this cost-effectiveness model, no extended pharmacologic anticoagulation was superior to extended prophylactic enoxaparin and apixaban in clinically early-stage endometrial cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery. This model supports use of prophylactic apixaban for 7 days post-operatively in select patients when the risk of DVT is 4.8% or higher.

Contemporary clinical and economic outcomes among oral anticoagulant treated and untreated elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: Insights from the United States Medicare database.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulants (OACs) mitigate the risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. OBJECTIVE: Elderly AF patients who were treated with OACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin) were compared against AF patients who were not treated with OACs with respect to their clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: Newly diagnosed AF patients were identified between January 2013 and December 2017 in the Medicare database. Evidence of an OAC treatment claim on or after the first AF diagnosis was used to classify patients into treatment-defined cohorts, and these cohorts were further stratified based on the initial OAC prescribed. The risks of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), and death were analyzed using inverse probability treatment weighted time-dependent Cox regression models, and costs were compared with marginal structural models. RESULTS: The two treatment groups were composed of 1,421,187 AF patients: OAC treated (N = 583,350, 41.0% [36.4% apixaban, 4.9% dabigatran, 0.1% edoxaban, 26.7% rivaroxaban, and 31.9% warfarin patients]) and untreated (N = 837,837, 59.0%). OAC-treated patients had a lower adjusted risk of stroke/SE compared to untreated patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.72). Additionally patients receiving OACs had a lower adjusted risk of death (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.55-0.56) and a higher risk of MB (HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.54-1.59) and this trend was consistent across each OAC sub-group. The OAC-treated cohort had lower adjusted total healthcare costs per patient per month ($4,381 vs $7,172; p < .0001). CONCLUSION: For the OAC-treated cohort in this elderly US population, stroke/SE and all-cause death were lower, while risk of MB was higher. Among OAC treated patients, total healthcare costs were lower than those of the untreated cohort.