Avatrombopag and lusutrombopag for thrombocytopenia in people with chronic liver disease needing an elective procedure: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: There have been no licensed treatment options in the UK for treating thrombocytopenia in people with chronic liver disease requiring surgery. Established management largely involves platelet transfusion prior to the procedure or as rescue therapy for bleeding due to the procedure. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two thrombopoietin receptor agonists, avatrombopag (Doptelet®; Dova Pharmaceuticals, Durham, NC, USA) and lusutrombopag (Mulpleta®; Shionogi Inc., London, UK), in addition to established clinical management compared with established clinical management (no thrombopoietin receptor agonist) in the licensed populations. DESIGN: Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count of < 50,000/µl) in people with chronic liver disease requiring surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Lusutrombopag 3 mg and avatrombopag (60 mg if the baseline platelet count is < 40,000/µl and 40 mg if it is 40,000-< 50,000/µl). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk of platelet transfusion and rescue therapy or risk of rescue therapy only. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review including meta-analysis. English-language and non-English-language articles were obtained from several databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, all searched from inception to 29 May 2019. ECONOMIC EVALUATION: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: From a comprehensive search retrieving 11,305 records, six studies were included. Analysis showed that avatrombopag and lusutrombopag were superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in avoiding both platelet transfusion and rescue therapy or rescue therapy only, and mostly with a statistically significant difference (i.e. 95% confidence intervals not overlapping the point of no difference). However, only avatrombopag seemed to be superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in reducing the risk of rescue therapy, although far fewer patients in the lusutrombopag trials than in the avatrombopag trials received rescue therapy. When assessing the cost-effectiveness of lusutrombopag and avatrombopag, it was found that, despite the success of these in avoiding platelet transfusions prior to surgery, the additional long-term gain in quality-adjusted life-years was very small. No thrombopoietin receptor agonist was clearly cheaper than both lusutrombopag and avatrombopag, as the cost savings from avoiding platelet transfusions were more than offset by the drug cost. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that, for all thresholds below £100,000, no thrombopoietin receptor agonist had 100% probability of being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: Some of the rescue therapy data for lusutrombopag were not available. There were inconsistencies in the avatrombopag data. From the cost-effectiveness point of view, there were several additional important gaps in the evidence required, including the lack of a price for avatrombopag. CONCLUSIONS: Avatrombopag and lusutrombopag were superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in avoiding both platelet transfusion and rescue therapy, but they were not cost-effective given the lack of benefit and increase in cost. FUTURE WORK: A head-to-head trial is warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019125311. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Thrombocytopenia, which is a reduction in platelet numbers in the blood, is a common complication of chronic liver disease. It increases the risk of bleeding during procedures including liver biopsy and transplantation. It can delay or prevent procedures, leading to illness and death. Established treatment largely involves platelet transfusion before the procedure or as rescue therapy for bleeding. This report aims to systematically review the clinical effectiveness and estimate the cost-effectiveness of the first two recently licensed treatments, thrombopoietin receptor agonists avatrombopag (Doptelet^®; Dova Pharmaceuticals, Durham, NC, USA) (60 mg if platelet count is < 40,000/µl and 40 mg if platelet count is 40,000­< 50,000/µl) and lusutrombopag (Mulpleta^®; Shionogi Inc., London, UK) (3 mg if platelet count is < 50,000/µl), compared with established treatment. From a comprehensive search, six studies were included. Clinical effectiveness analysis showed that avatrombopag and lusutrombopag were superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in avoiding both platelet transfusion and rescue therapy. Only avatrombopag seemed superior to no thrombopoietin receptor agonist in reducing rescue therapy alone. Cost-effectiveness analysis found that lusutrombopag and avatrombopag were more expensive than no thrombopoietin receptor agonist over a lifetime, as the savings from avoiding platelet transfusions were exceeded by the drug cost, and without long-term health benefits. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis, which examined the effect of uncertainty, showed that no thrombopoietin receptor agonist had 100% probability of being cost-effective. Uncertainty about the price of avatrombopag and the content and costs of platelet transfusions and the potential under-reporting of use to estimate platelet transfusion-specific mortality had the greatest impact on results. If the price of avatrombopag was (confidential information has been removed) below the price of lusutrombopag, avatrombopag would become cost saving in the 40,000­< 50,000/µl subgroup. However, although in some scenarios avatrombopag costs could decrease in the 40,000­< 50,000/µl subgroup to around 10% more than the cost of no thrombopoietin receptor agonist, there would be negligible health benefits and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios would remain very high, meaning that lusutrombopag and avatrombopag would still not be considered cost-effective.

Health Care Cost in Patients With Schizophrenia Treated With Brexpiprazole Versus Other Oral Atypical Antipsychotic Therapy.

PURPOSE: Brexpiprazole is an oral atypical antipsychotic (OAA) for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). This study compared all-cause and psychiatric inpatient hospitalization and medical costs in adult patients with SCZ newly treated with brexpiprazole versus other US Food and Drug Administration-approved OAAs in a real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from: (1) the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases, and the MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid database; and (2) the de-identified Optum Clinformatics Datamart. Adult patients were identified if they had SCZ and initiated either brexpiprazole or another OAA during the study identification period (July 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, for MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental and for Optum; July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016, for MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid) and had ≥12 months of continuous enrollment before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the first treatment date. Linear regression analyses were performed to test associations between treatment groups (brexpiprazole vs another OAA) and costs (total and medical); negative binomial regression models were used to estimate number of hospitalizations per year, adjusting for baseline characteristics and medication adherence to index treatment during the 12-month follow-up. FINDINGS: The final study sample consisted of 6254 patients with SCZ: 176 initiated brexpiprazole; 391, ziprasidone; 453, paliperidone; 523, lurasidone; 786, aripiprazole; 1234, quetiapine; 1264, olanzapine; and 1427, risperidone. Controlling for baseline characteristics and medication adherence, the adjusted number of hospitalizations (both all-cause and psychiatric), all-cause total costs, and all-cause medical costs did not differ across groups. Brexpiprazole users had the lowest mean psychiatric costs among all OAA users ($12,013; 95% bootstrap CI, 7488-16,538). Compared with brexpiprazole users, paliperidone (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.52 [1.05-2.19]; P = 0.027) and quetiapine (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.47 [1.04-2.07]; P = 0.029) users had more psychiatric hospitalizations per year. Paliperidone had higher psychiatric costs than brexpiprazole (total, $32,066 [95% bootstrap CI, 28,779-35,353] vs $23,851 [18,907-28,795]; medical, $19,343 [16,294-22,392] vs $12,013 [7488-16,538]). Psychiatric medical costs were also $6744 higher in olanzapine users (95% bootstrap CI, 1694-11,795; P = 0.009) than in brexpiprazole users. IMPLICATIONS: Patients with SCZ treated with brexpiprazole had fewer psychiatric hospitalizations and lower psychiatric costs than those treated with paliperidone. Differences in the number of all-cause hospitalizations and medical costs among treatments were not statistically significant. Although treatment decisions are driven by a number of factors (eg, clinical circumstances and drug costs), choice of OAA may affect health care costs.

Medication Adherence, Health Care Utilization, and Costs in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder Initiating Adjunctive Atypical Antipsychotic Treatment.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare medication adherence, health care utilization, and cost among patients receiving adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) with brexpiprazole, quetiapine, or lurasidone. METHODS: Using Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare Supplemental Databases, we identified adults with MDD initiating adjunctive treatment with brexpiprazole, quetiapine, or lurasidone (index atypical antipsychotic [AAP]). We compared medication adherence and persistence measured by proportion of days covered (PDC) and treatment duration of index AAP, all-cause and psychiatric hospital care (hospitalization or emergency department visit), and medical costs during 6-month follow-up. Models performed included logistic regression for hospital care, linear regression for PDC and cost, and Cox proportional hazards regression for time to discontinuation, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and utilization differences during the 6 months before index AAP. FINDINGS: The total sample included 778 brexpiprazole, 626 lurasidone, and 3458 quetiapine therapy initiators. Adjusting for baseline differences, the risk of discontinuation of index AAP was statistically significantly higher for quetiapine than for brexpiprazole (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25; P = 0.023) and did not differ between lurasidone and brexipiprazole (HR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00-1.29; P = 0.054). The adjusted rate of all-cause hospitalization or emergency department visit in the postindex period was lowest for brexpiprazole at 27.4% (95% CI, 24.0%-31.0%), compared with 31.1% (95% CI, 27.3%-35.2%) for lurasidone and 35.3% (95% CI, 33.5%-37.1%) for quetiapine (P< 0.001 for all comparisons). Quetiapine users had increased all-cause costs compared with brexpiprazole users (estimate = $2309; 95% CI, $31-$4587; P = 0.047); all-cause medical costs did not differ between lurasidone and brexpiprazole (estimate = $913; 95% CI, $-2033 -$3859; P = 0.543). Adjusted psychiatric hospital care, psychiatric costs, and PDC did not differ significantly among the groups. IMPLICATIONS: In patients with MDD and a variety of insurance types, brexpiprazole use was associated with statistically significantly lower risks of discontinuation, risk of hospital care (hospitalization and ED visits), and all-cause medical costs compared with adjunctive quetiapine. Differences between brexpiprazole and lurasidone were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that drug choice is associated with subsequent health care utilization and costs.

Cost-effectiveness of brexpiprazole adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a debilitating psychiatric illness with a high cost burden. This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adjunctive brexpiprazole versus comparator branded adjunctive treatment for MDD and background antidepressant therapy (ADT) alone from a US payer perspective. METHODS: An economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of brexpiprazole versus comparator adjunctive treatment and ADT alone on total direct medical costs using a 6-week cycle time frame for a total of 48 weeks, with treatment response and remission as primary outcomes. The model consisted of 3 parts, 1 to represent the acute treatment phase and 2 to represent the maintenance stage. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, brexpiprazole as reference treatment resulted in cost per additional responder ranging from $19,442-$48,745 and cost per additional remitter ranging from $27,196-$71,839 versus comparator treatments over 48 weeks. Sensitivity analyses showed treatment with brexpiprazole was more costly, but more clinically effective in all probabilistic simulations. LIMITATIONS: This representation of disease natural history over 48 weeks may not account for all possible health states. Resource utilization on treatment was estimated using the resource use data from previous trials, and may overestimate medical costs compared to the real-world setting. Treatment comparators were limited to branded therapies, and head-to-head studies were not available to obtain data inputs. CONCLUSION: Compared to other branded adjunctive therapies, brexpiprazole increases response and remission at 6 weeks; medical care cost savings were observed with the use of brexpiprazole. These findings may assist clinicians and formulary decision makers when selecting treatment for MDD.

Maximizing cost-effectiveness by adjusting treatment strategy according to glaucoma severity.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine the most cost-effective strategy for the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) in Brazil, from the payer's perspective (Brazilian Public Health System) in the setting of the Glaucoma Referral Centers. METHODS: Study design was a cost-effectiveness analysis of different treatment strategies for POAG. We developed 3 Markov models (one for each glaucoma stage: early, moderate and advanced), using a hypothetical cohort of POAG patients, from the perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) and a horizon of the average life expectancy of the Brazilian population. Different strategies were tested according to disease severity. For early glaucoma, we compared observation, laser and medications. For moderate glaucoma, medications, laser and surgery. For advanced glaucoma, medications and surgery. Main outcome measures were ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), medical direct costs and QALY (quality-adjusted life year). RESULTS: In early glaucoma, both laser and medical treatment were cost-effective (ICERs of initial laser and initial medical treatment over observation only, were R$ 2,811.39/QALY and R$ 3,450.47/QALY). Compared to observation strategy, the two alternatives have provided significant gains in quality of life. In moderate glaucoma population, medical treatment presented the highest costs among treatment strategies. Both laser and surgery were highly cost-effective in this group. For advanced glaucoma, both tested strategies were cost-effective. Starting age had a great impact on results in all studied groups. Initiating glaucoma therapy using laser or surgery were more cost-effective, the younger the patient. CONCLUSION: All tested treatment strategies for glaucoma provided real gains in quality of life and were cost-effective. However, according to the disease severity, not all strategies provided the same cost-effectiveness profile. Based on our findings, there should be a preferred strategy for each glaucoma stage, according to a cost-effectiveness ratio ranking.

Bridging the osteoporosis treatment gap: performance and cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service.

Individuals who sustain fragility fractures are at high risk of refracture. However, osteoporosis treatment rates remain low for these patients. Therefore, we aimed to assess the performance and cost-effectiveness of introducing a fracture liaison service (FLS) into a tertiary hospital. In "nonhospitalized" ambulatory patients who had sustained fragility fractures, we assessed baseline osteoporosis investigation and treatment rates, and subsequently, the impact of introducing an orthopedic osteoporosis policy and an FLS. Outcomes measured were uptake of osteoporosis intervention, patient satisfaction, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. QALYs were calculated over 5 years using predicted fracture risks without intervention and estimated fracture risk reduction with intervention. At baseline (n = 49), 2% of ambulatory patients who had sustained fragility fractures underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and 6% received osteoporosis-specific medication. After introduction of an osteoporosis policy (n = 58), 28% were investigated with DXA (p < 0.0001). However, treatment rates were unchanged. An FLS was introduced, reviewing 203 new patients over the inaugural 2 years (mean age [standard deviation], 67 (11) years; 77% female). All underwent DXA, and criteria for osteoporosis and osteopenia were identified in 44% and 40%, respectively. Osteoporosis medications were prescribed to 61% patients (risedronate: 22%, alendronate: 16%, strontium ranelate: 13%, zoledronic acid: 8%, other: 2%). Eighty-five of 90 questionnaire respondents were very satisfied or satisfied with the FLS. With the treatment prescribed over 5 years, we conservatively estimated that this FLS would reduce nonvertebral refractures from 59 to 50, improving QALYs by 0.054 and costing $1716 per patient (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $31749). This FLS model improves uptake of osteoporosis intervention guidelines, is popular among patients, and improves cost-effectiveness. Thus, it has the capacity to substantially improve health in a cost-effective way.

Review of pharmacoeconomic evaluation of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Clopidogrel is an antiplatelet agent widely prescribed for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and it is activated by the CYP enzyme system to active metabolite. CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) allele(s) affect the responsiveness of clopidogrel, but not the new antiplatelet agents (prasugrel and ticagrelor). We reviewed the pharmacoeconomic studies on genotype-guided use of new antiplatelet agents. AREAS COVERED: A literature search was conducted between the period of 2000 and 2014. Seven studies including cost-effectiveness and risk-benefit analyses of CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in ACS patients were reviewed. Genotype-guided prasugrel was found to be cost-effective when compared with universal antiplatelet therapy in four studies. Three studies showed genotype-guided ticagrelor to be cost-effective in ACS patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and universal ticagrelor to be cost-effective in ACS patients. Drug cost of antiplatelet agents and relative risk of the new antiplatelet versus clopidogrel for clinical events were common influential factors of cost-effectiveness analyses. EXPERT OPINION: All studies in the present review focused on selecting antiplatelet agents for carriers of CYP2C19 LOF allele(s). Cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided use of antiplatelets was demonstrated in high-risk ACS patients.

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

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Singapore. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to compare the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of dabigatran 110 and 150 mg, rivaroxaban 20 mg and adjusted-dose warfarin from the perspective of the Singapore healthcare system, using clinical data from published studies, utilities from a patient-reported survey and costs from hospital databases. The target population was a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old AF patients with no contraindications to anticoagulation. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the QALYs were 8.75 with warfarin, 8.73 with dabigatran 110 mg, 8.82 with dabigatran 150 mg, and 9.33 with rivaroxaban. The costs were Singapore dollar (SG$) 34,648 for warfarin, SG$54,919 for dabigatran 110 mg, SG$50,484 for dabigatran 150 mg and SG$51,975 for rivaroxaban. The ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was SG$29,697 (US$26,727) per QALY. Rivaroxaban and warfarin had extended dominance over the high-dose dabigatran. The low-dose dabigatran was dominated by warfarin. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was sensitive to cost of rivaroxaban and utilities for rivaroxaban and warfarin. Probability sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of rivaroxaban being the optimal choice was 97.8% and 99.5% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of SG$65,000 (US$58,500) and SG$130,000 (US$117,000) per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban may be a cost-effective alternative to warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF in Singapore.

Cost effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in two different European healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to investigate the cost effectiveness of apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran compared with coumarin derivatives for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in a country with specialized anticoagulation clinics (the Netherlands) and in a country without these clinics (the UK). METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was used to analyse the cost effectiveness of apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran compared with coumarin derivatives in the Netherlands and the UK over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: In the Netherlands, the use of rivaroxaban, apixaban, or dabigatran increased health by 0.166, 0.365, and 0.374 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with coumarin derivatives, but also increased costs by 5,681, 4,754, and 5,465, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were 34,248, 13,024, and 14,626 per QALY gained. In the UK, health was increased by 0.302, 0.455, and 0.461 QALYs, and the incremental costs were similar for all three new oral anticoagulants (5,118-5,217). The ICERs varied from 11,172 to 16,949 per QALY gained. In the Netherlands, apixaban had the highest chance (37 %) of being cost effective at a threshold of 20,000; in the UK, this chance was 41 % for dabigatran. The quality of care, reflected in time in therapeutic range, had an important influence on the ICER. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran are cost-effective alternatives to coumarin derivatives in the UK, while in the Netherlands, only apixaban and dabigatran could be considered cost effective. The cost effectiveness of the new oral anticoagulants is largely dependent on the setting and quality of local anticoagulant care facilities.

Cost-utility of cognitive behavioral therapy versus U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended drugs and usual care in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia: an economic evaluation alongside a 6-month randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended pharmacologic treatments (RPTs; pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran) are effective treatment options for fibromyalgia (FM) syndrome and are currently recommended by clinical guidelines. We compared the cost-utility from the healthcare and societal perspectives of CBT versus RPT (combination of pregabalin + duloxetine) and usual care (TAU) groups in the treatment of FM. METHODS: The economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 6-month, multicenter, randomized, blinded, parallel group, controlled trial. In total, 168 FM patients from 41 general practices in Zaragoza (Spain) were randomized to CBT (n = 57), RPT (n = 56), or TAU (n = 55). The main outcome measures were Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs, assessed by using the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire) and improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL, assessed by using EuroQoL-5D visual analogue scale, EQ-VAS). The costs of healthcare use were estimated from patient self-reports (Client Service Receipt Inventory). Cost-utility was assessed by using the net-benefit approach and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). RESULTS: On average, the total costs per patient in the CBT group (1,847 €) were significantly lower than those in patients receiving RPT (3,664 €) or TAU (3,124 €). Patients receiving CBT reported a higher quality of life (QALYs and EQ-VAS scores); the differences between groups were significant only for EQ-VAS. From a complete case-analysis approach (base case), the point estimates of the cost-effectiveness ratios resulted in dominance for the CBT group in all of the comparisons performed, by using both QALYs and EQ-VAS as outcomes. These findings were confirmed by bootstrap analyses, net-benefit curves, and CEACs. Two additional sensitivity analyses (intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis) indicated that the results were robust. The comparison of RPT with TAU yielded no clear preference for either treatment when using QALYs, although RPT was determined to be more cost-effective than TAU when evaluating EQ-VAS. CONCLUSIONS: Because of lower costs, CBT is the most cost-effective treatment for adult FM patients. Implementation in routine medical care would require policymakers to develop more-widespread public access to trained and experienced therapists in group-based forms of CBT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10804772. Registered 29 September 2008.

[Cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared to other new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation].

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is associated with development of thromboembolic events. New oral anticoagulants (apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran) are recommended for antithrombotic therapy in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) with moderate and high risk of stroke. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness ratio of apixaban compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban in patients with NVAF from the Russian Federation national health care system perspective. METHODS: This analysis used a Markov model that allowed estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for apixaban compared to rivaroxaban and dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg over lifetime horizon for patients with NVAF. The model enclosed cardiovascular event rates based on the results of the indirect treatment comparison that combined data from the randomized clinical trials comparing clinical effectiveness and safety of apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran with warfarin (ARISTOTLE, ROCKET-AF, RE-LY). The following cardiovascular events were considered: ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds and myocardial infarction. Direct medical costs were determined based on the rates of the compulsory national medical insurance system. The price of the new oral anticoagulants was taken as a weighted average tender price for the year 2013. In the model both costs and benefits (quality-adjusted life years and life-years) were discounted at 3.5%. Cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 1.4 million rubles per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and corresponded to the three times GDP per capita in 2013 in the Russian Federation. RESULTS: In the base case analysis it was demonstrated that apixaban compared to dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg and rivaroxaban provided additional 0.101, 0.060 and 0.072 life years as well as additional 0.063; 0.038 and 0.041 QALYs respectively. Over lifetime horizon apixaban compared to dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg and rivaroxaban required additional treatment costs equal to 22.78; 31.18 and 6.70 thousands rubles, respectively. With that estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for apixaban compared to dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg and rivaroxaban was 362.60, 805.54 and 162.45 thousands rubles per QALY correspondingly. CONCLUSION: Apixaban provided increased life expectancy compared to other new anticoagulants and may be considered as a cost-effective alternative to dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg and rivaroxaban from the Russian Federation national health care system perspective.

An Internet snapshot study to compare the international availability of the novel psychoactive substance methiopropamine.

CONTEXT: With the increased use of novel psychoactive substances, there is an increasing availability of these substances from Internet-based suppliers. Methiopropamine, first reported in 2011, is a recreational drug available over the Internet. The aim of this study was to investigate availability and cost of methiopropamine in three different countries: the UK, France, and Canada. METHODS: Using the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction Internet snapshot methodology, this study, conducted in June 2013, was undertaken in two different languages: in English (the UK and Canada) and in French (France and Canada), using three Internet searching engines: " google.co.uk ", " google.fr " and " google.ca ". RESULTS: A total of 62 sites were found, most of them were found from the English searches. 45% of the suppliers seemed to originate from the UK. The prices of methiopropamine were comparable between suppliers, no matter which search engine or language was used. The cost of a unit of methiopropamine was inversely related to the purchased quantity, going from 19.49 ± 0.15 GBP per gram for a purchase amount of 500 mg to 3.54 ± 0.13 GBP per gram for a purchase amount of 1 kg. DISCUSSION: The results of the present study demonstrate that the sale of methiopropamine has the potential to reach users across the world. It also appears to support that snapshot studies could be used for toxicovigilance across different countries, by studying the Internet market of novel psychoactive substances. CONCLUSION: To date, snapshot studies, used to monitor the Internet novel psychoactive substances market, have only been undertaken in Europe. We have shown that the flexibility of this methodology enables comparison of the online activity of drug sellers between different countries and continents and that, at least for methiopropamine, the UK is the predominant source for Internet supply.

Evaluation of medical costs associated with use of new oral anticoagulants compared with standard therapy among venous thromboembolism patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated differences in medical costs associated with clinical end-points from randomized clinical trials that compared the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, to standard therapy for treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Event rates of efficacy and safety end-points from the clinical trials (RE-COVER, RE-COVER II, EINSTEIN-Pooled, AMPLIFY, Hokusai-VTE trial) were obtained from published literature. Incremental annual medical costs among patients with clinical events from a US payer perspective were obtained from the literature or healthcare claims databases and inflation adjusted to 2013 costs. Differences in total medical costs associated with clinical end-points for the NOACs vs standard therapy were then estimated. One-way and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: A lower rate of major bleedings was associated with use of any of the NOACs vs standard therapy. Except for dabigatran, use of NOACs was also associated with a lower rate of recurrent VTE/death. As a result of the reduction in clinical event rates, the overall medical cost differences were -$146, -$482, -$918, and -$344 for VTE patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, respectively, vs patients treated with standard therapy. CONCLUSIONS: When any of the four NOACs are used instead of standard therapy for acute VTE, treatment medical costs are reduced. Apixaban is associated with the greatest reduction in medical costs, which is driven by medical cost reductions associated with both efficacy and safety end-points. Further evaluation may be needed to validate these results in the real-world setting.

Estimated medical cost reductions associated with use of novel oral anticoagulants vs warfarin in a real-world non-valvular atrial fibrillation patient population.

OBJECTIVE: RESULTS of randomized clinical trials (RCT) demonstrate that novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are effective therapies for reducing the risk of stroke in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Prior medical cost avoidance studies have used warfarin event rates from RCTs, which may differ from patients receiving treatment in a real-world (RW) setting, where the quality of care may not be the same as in a RCT. The purpose of this study was to estimate the change in medical costs related to stroke and major bleeding for each NOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivoraxaban) relative to warfarin in a RW NVAF population. METHODS: Patients (n = 23,525) with a diagnosis of NVAF during 2007-2010 were selected from a Medco population of US health plans. Stroke and major bleeding excluding intracranial hemorrhage (MBEIH) events were identified using diagnosis codes on medical claims. RW reference event rates were calculated during periods of warfarin exposure. RW event rates for NOACs were estimated by multiplying the corresponding relative risk (RR) from the RCTs by each reference rate. Absolute risk reductions (ARR) or number of events avoided per patient year were then estimated. Changes in medical costs associated with each NOAC were calculated by applying the ARR to the 1-year cost for each event. Costs for stroke and MBEIH were obtained from the literature. Drug and international normalized ratio monitoring costs were not considered in this analysis. RESULTS: Compared to RW warfarin, use of apixaban and dabigatran resulted in total (stroke plus MBEIH) medical cost reductions of $1245 and $555, respectively, during a patient year. Rivaroxaban resulted in a medical cost increase of $144. CONCLUSIONS: If relative risk reductions demonstrated in RCTs persist in a RW setting, apixaban would confer the greatest medical cost savings vs warfarin, resulting from significantly lower rates of both stroke and MBEIH.

Patterns of initiation of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation- quality and cost implications.

BACKGROUND: Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban have been approved for use in patients with atrial fibrillation based upon randomized trials demonstrating their comparable or superior efficacy and safety relative to warfarin. Little is known about their adoption into clinical practice, whether utilization is consistent with the controlled trials on which their approval was based, and how their use has affected health spending for patients and insurers. METHODS: We used medical and prescription claims data from a large insurer to identify patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were prescribed an oral anticoagulant in 2010-2013. We plotted trends in medication initiation over time, assessed corresponding insurer and patient out-of-pocket spending, and evaluated the cumulative number and cost of anticoagulants. We identified predictors of novel anticoagulant initiation using multivariable logistic models. Finally, we estimated the difference in total drug expenditures over 6 months for patients initiating warfarin versus a novel anticoagulant. RESULTS: There were 6893 patients with atrial fibrillation that initiated an oral anticoagulant during the study period. By the end of the study period, novel anticoagulants accounted for 62% of new prescriptions and 98% of anticoagulant-related drug costs. Female sex, lower household income, and higher CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASC, and HAS-BLED scores were significantly associated with lower odds of receiving a novel anticoagulant (P <.001 for each). Average combined patient and insurer anticoagulant spending in the first 6 months after initiation was more than $900 greater for patients initiating a novel anticoagulant. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates rapid adoption of novel anticoagulants into clinical practice, particularly among patients with lower CHADS2 and HAS-BLED scores, and high health care cost consequences. These findings provide important directions for future comparative and cost-effectiveness research.

Cost effectiveness of duloxetine for osteoarthritis: a Quebec societal perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of duloxetine compared to other oral postacetaminophen treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) from a Quebec societal perspective. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed enhancing the Markov model from the 2008 OA guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). The NICE model was extended to include opioid and antidepressant comparators, adding titration, discontinuation, and relevant adverse events (AEs). Comparators included duloxetine, celecoxib, diclofenac, naproxen, hydromorphone, and oxycodone extended release (oxycodone). AEs included gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), as well as fracture, opioid abuse, and constipation, among others. Costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated in 2011 Canadian dollars. The base case modeled a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA for a 12-month period of treatment, followed by treatment from a basket of post-discontinuation oral therapies until death. Sensitivity analyses (one-way and probabilistic) were conducted. RESULTS: Overall, naproxen was the least expensive treatment, whereas oxycodone was the most expensive. Duloxetine accumulated the highest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with an ICER of $36,291 per QALY versus celecoxib. Duloxetine was dominant over opioids. In subgroup analyses, ICERs for duloxetine versus celecoxib were $15,619 and $20,463 for patients at high risk of NSAID-related AEs and patients ages >65 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine was cost effective for a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA, and more so in older patients and those with greater AE risks.

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in France: comparative cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban), warfarin, and aspirin.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct an economic evaluation of the currently prescribed treatments for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) including warfarin, aspirin, and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) from a French payer perspective. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted in accordance to the new French guidelines of the Commission for Economic Evaluation and Public Health (CEESP), to adopt the recommended efficiency frontier approach. A cohort of patients with NVAF eligible for stroke preventive treatment was simulated over lifetime. Clinical events modeled included strokes, systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and myocardial infarction. Efficacy and bleeding data for warfarin, apixaban, and aspirin were obtained from ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials, whilst efficacy data for other NOACs were from published indirect comparisons. Acute medical costs were obtained from a dedicated analysis of the French national hospitalization database (PMSI). Long-term medical costs and utility data were derived from the literature. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model projections. RESULTS: Warfarin and apixaban were the two optimal treatment choices, as the other five treatment strategies including aspirin, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran in sequential dosages, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban were strictly dominated on the efficiency frontier. Further, apixaban was a cost-effective alternative vs warfarin with an incremental cost of €2314 and an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.189, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12,227/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban may be the most economically efficient alternative to warfarin in NVAF patients eligible for stroke prevention in France. All other strategies were dominated, yielding apixaban as a less costly yet more effective treatment alternative. As formally requested by the CEESP, these results need to be verified in a French clinical setting using stroke reduction and bleeding safety observed in real-life patient cohorts using these anticoagulants.

Economic evaluation of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is a major risk factor for stroke, which causes thousands of deaths and sequelae. It is recommended that atrial fibrillation patients at medium or high risk of stroke use an oral anticoagulant to reduce the risk of stroke. In the past few years, three new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, have been introduced in competition to the older oral anticoagulant warfarin. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative cost effectiveness of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban in a Norwegian setting. METHODS: We created a probabilistic decision-analytic Markov model to simulate the life of patients with atrial fibrillation. We performed several scenario analyses, including changing the switching age for dabigatran from 80 to 75 years old. RESULTS: Assuming the European Society of Cardiology guidance, sequential dabigatran (2 × 150 mg daily until 80 years old, 2 × 110 mg thereafter) seems to be the most cost-effective alternative for high-risk AF patients. For medium-risk patients, apixaban (2 × 5 mg daily) seems to be somewhat more effective than dabigatran, but dabigatran is still marginally the most cost-effective alternative. In scenario analyses reducing dabigatran from 2 × 150 mg to 2 × 110 mg at the age of 75 years (instead of at age 80), apixaban (2 × 5 mg daily) becomes the most cost-effective alternative for both risk groups. CONCLUSION: We have found apixaban or sequential dabigatran to be the alternatives most likely to be considered cost effective, depending on the switching age for dabigatran. These conclusions are highly sensitive to assumptions made in the analysis.

A cost-analysis model for anticoagulant treatment in the hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban is the first oral factor Xa inhibitor approved in the US to reduce the risk of stroke and blood clots among people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, treat deep vein thrombosis (DVT), treat pulmonary embolism (PE), reduce the risk of recurrence of DVT and PE, and prevent DVT and PE after knee or hip replacement surgery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the costs from a hospital perspective of treating patients with rivaroxaban vs other anticoagulant agents across these five populations. METHODS: An economic model was developed using treatment regimens from the ROCKET-AF, EINSTEIN-DVT and PE, and RECORD1-3 randomized clinical trials. The distribution of hospital admissions used in the model across the different populations was derived from the 2010 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database. The model compared total costs of anticoagulant treatment, monitoring, inpatient stay, and administration for patients receiving rivaroxaban vs other anticoagulant agents. The length of inpatient stay (LOS) was determined from the literature. RESULTS: Across all populations, rivaroxaban was associated with an overall mean cost savings of $1520 per patient. The largest cost savings associated with rivaroxaban was observed in patients with DVT or PE ($6205 and $2742 per patient, respectively). The main driver of the cost savings resulted from the reduction in LOS associated with rivaroxaban, contributing to ∼90% of the total savings. Furthermore, the overall mean anticoagulant treatment cost was lower for rivaroxaban vs the reference groups. LIMITATIONS: The distribution of patients across indications used in the model may not be generalizable to all hospitals, where practice patterns may vary, and average LOS cost may not reflect the actual reimbursements that hospitals received. CONCLUSION: From a hospital perspective, the use of rivaroxaban may be associated with cost savings when compared to other anticoagulant treatments due to lower drug cost and shorter LOS associated with rivaroxaban.

Is rivaroxaban associated with lower inpatient costs compared to warfarin among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?

BACKGROUND: Warfarin has been the mainstay treatment used by patients with a moderate-to-high risk of stroke due to non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Unlike rivaroxaban, laboratory monitoring to allow the attainment of the prothrombin time international normalized ratio goal is required with warfarin, thereby potentially increasing a patient's hospitalization costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare hospitalization costs between hospitalized NVAF patients using rivaroxaban versus warfarin in a real-world setting. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis was conducted using the Premier Perspective Comparative Hospital Database from November 2010 to September 2012. The study included adult patients hospitalized for NVAF after November 2011. Patients using rivaroxaban during hospitalization were matched with up to four warfarin users by propensity score analyses. Hospitalization costs were compared between the matched cohorts using generalized estimating equations. A sub-analysis was performed for patients who were first administered their treatment on day three or later of their hospital stay. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on matched cohorts with a primary diagnosis of AF. RESULTS: The matched cohorts' (2809 rivaroxaban and 11,085 warfarin users) characteristics were well balanced. The mean age of cohorts was 71 years and 49% of patients were female. The average hospitalization cost of rivaroxaban users was $11,993 compared to $13,255 for warfarin users. The cost difference was significantly lower by $1284 (P < 0.001). Patients who were administered rivaroxaban treatment on day three or after incurred significantly lower hospitalization costs (cost difference: $4350; P < 0.001) compared to warfarin users. Rivaroxaban users with a primary diagnosis of AF also had significantly lower costs compared to warfarin users. LIMITATIONS: These included possible inaccuracies or omissions in diagnoses, completeness of baseline characteristics, and a study population that included patients newly initiated on and patients who continued anticoagulant therapy. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization costs for rivaroxaban were significantly lower than those for warfarin in NVAF patients treated with rivaroxaban.