Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in the Belgian healthcare setting

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.

Economic evaluation in cardiac electrophysiology: Determining the value of emerging technologies

Cardiac electrophysiology is a constantly evolving speciality that has benefited from technological innovation and refinements over the past several decades. Despite the potential of these technologies to reshape patient care, their upfront costs pose a challenge to health policymakers who are responsible for the assessment of the novel technology in the context of increasingly limited resources. In this context, it is critical for new therapies or technologies to demonstrate that the measured improvement in patients' outcomes for the cost of achieving that improvement is within conventional benchmarks for acceptable health care value. The field of Health Economics, specifically economic evaluation methods, facilitates this assessment of value in health care. In this review, we provide an overview of the basic principles of economic evaluation and provide historical applications within the field of cardiac electrophysiology. Specifically, the cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation for both atrial fibrillation (AF) and ventricular tachycardia, novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in AF, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy will be reviewed.

Economic evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) by pooling incremental net benefits (INBs).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

We searched PubMed, Scopus and Centre for Evaluation of Value and Risks in Health Registry from inception to December 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with AF.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The INB was defined as a difference of incremental effectiveness multiplied by willing to pay threshold minus the incremental cost; a positive INB indicated favour treatment. These INBs were pooled (stratified by level of country income, perspective, time-horizon, model types) with a random-effects model if heterogeneity existed, otherwise a fixed effects model was applied. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I² statistic. Risk of bias was assessed using the economic evaluations bias (ECOBIAS) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 100 eligible economic evaluation studies (224 comparisons) were included. For high-income countries (HICs) from a third-party payer (TPP) perspective, the pooled INBs for DOAC versus VKA pairs were significantly cost-effective with INBs (95% CI) of $6632 ($2961.67 to $10 303.72; I²=59.9%), $6353.24 ($4076.03 to $8630.45; I²=0%), $7664.58 ($2979.79 to $12 349.37; I²=0%) and $8573.07 ($1877.05 to $15 269.09; I²=0%) for dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban and edoxaban relative to VKA, respectively but only dabigatran was significantly cost-effective from societal perspective (SP) with an INB of $11 746.96 ($2429.34 to $21 064.59; I²=52.4%). The pooled INBs of all comparisons for upper-middle income countries (UMICs) were not significantly cost-effective. The ECOBIAS checklist indicated that risk of bias was mostly low for most items with the exception of five items which should be less influenced on pooling INBs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis provides comprehensive economic evidence that allows policy makers to generalise cost-effectiveness data to their local context. All DOACs may be cost-effective compared with VKA in HICs with TPP perspective. The pooling results produced moderate to high heterogeneity particularly in UMICs. Further studies are required to inform UMICs with SP.

PROSPERO REGISTERATION NUMBER

CRD 42019146610.

The Study of Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Who Developed Ischemic Stroke

Introduction

Rivaroxaban is a new anticoagulant providing benefits for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared to warfarin in patients with AF.

Method

This economic evaluation study was conducted among 144 selected nonrandomly patients who were treated with rivaroxaban or warfarin and suffered from AF leading to stroke, in the stroke ward of Shiraz Nemazee Hospital in 2019. The final and clinical (intermediate) outcomes were QALYs and no bleeding and prevention of ischemic stroke, respectively. The study was performed from the social perspective, and a deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify the effects of uncertainty. The analysis of the collected data was carried out using SPSS18 and TreeAge software.

Results

Patients who received rivaroxaban had lower costs ($ 25275 vs. $ 26554) and higher QALYs (0.5 vs. 0.33) compared to those taking warfarin. Bleeding and stroke occurred in (9 vs. 40) and (1 vs. 3) patients in the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups, respectively, and there was a significant decrease in the incidence of bleeding in the rivaroxaban group (81.9% vs 44.4%). Thus, rivaroxaban in all the outcomes was cheaper and more effective than warfarin. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results.

Conclusions

Considering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, rivaroxaban is more cost-effective and can be a dominant alternative. Therefore, it is suggested to use rivaroxaban as the first priority in AF patients because rivaroxaban reduces costs and increases clinical outcomes compared with warfarin.

Cost-Effectiveness of Apixaban versus Other Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in the Prevention of Thromboembolic Complications Among Finnish Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation

Purpose

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use for the prevention of thromboembolic complications in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) has increased steadily in Finland. DOACs have been shown to be cost-effective in comparison to warfarin, but published evidence of relative cost-effectiveness between DOACs is still scarce and mostly based on indirect comparisons of clinical trial evidence. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of apixaban to dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin in a Finnish setting using real-life evidence where available.

Patients and Methods

A lifetime Markov simulation model used previously in a published Finnish assessment comparing apixaban and warfarin was modified and updated with the relative effectiveness and safety data available from the real-world NAXOS-study and representative Finnish input data for patient characteristics, event risks, mortality, resource use, costs, and quality of life. Apixaban’s cost-effectiveness was assessed from health care payer perspective (using 3% per year discount rate) based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained), probability of cost-effectiveness (at willingness-to-pay [WTP] of 35,000 euros/QALY), and net monetary benefit (NMB).

Results

Apixaban increased the average modelled quality-adjusted life-expectancy and reduced the average total health care costs of AF patients when compared to warfarin (+0.14 QALYs, −3691 euros), dabigatran (+0.11 QALYs, −404 euros), and rivaroxaban (+0.03 QALYs, −43 euros). The resulting NMB of apixaban versus warfarin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban was 8723, 4168, and 1129 euros, respectively. The respective probabilities of apixaban being cost-effective against each comparator were 100%, 92.7%, and 64.0%.

Conclusion

In this modelling study, apixaban dominated other anticoagulants in the Finnish real-life setting.

Cost-Effectiveness of Direct Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for the Management of Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Based on Available "Real-World" Evidence: The Italian National Health System Perspective

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The increasing availability of real-world evidence (RWE) about safety and effectiveness of direct non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) offers the opportunity to better understand the clinical and economic implications of DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). The objective of this study was to compare the economic implications of DOACs and VKAs using data from real-world evidence in patients with AF.

METHODS

A Markov model simulating the lifetime course of patients diagnosed with non-valvular AF was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DOACs (i.e., rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban) versus VKAs from the Italian National Health System (INHS) perspective. The model was made up of data from the literature and a meta-analysis of RWE on the incidence of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) and all-cause mortality (ACM); direct costs included drug costs, costs for drug monitoring, and management of events from official national lists. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were used to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Results from the meta-analysis showed that apixaban had a high probability of being the most effective for stroke/SE, MB and ACM. Despite their higher acquisition costs, the cost-effectiveness analysis showed all DOACs involved a saving when compared with VKAs, with per-patient savings ranging between €4647 (rivaroxaban) to €6086 (apixaban). Moreover, all DOACs indicated a gain both in quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. According to PSA, findings related to apixaban were consistent, while for dabigatran and rivaroxaban PSA revealed a higher degree of uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

The beneficial effect of DOACs on containing events showed in RWE had the potential to offset drug-related costs, thus improving the sustainability of treatment for non-valvular AF in daily clinical practice.

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

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

Treatment patterns in anticoagulant therapy in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in Belgium: results from the GARFIELD-AF registry

Background: AF, anticoagulation, NOACs, changing patterns of prescription. Methods: We describe baseline data and treatment patterns of patients recruited in Belgium in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF). Recruitment began when novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were introduced and provides a unique picture of changing treatment patterns over time. 1713 patients with a new (≤6 weeks duration) diagnosis of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and at least one investigator-defined stroke risk factor were recruited between May 2012 and August 2016, and will be prospectively followed for at least 2 years. Results: Overall, anticoagulant use in Belgium was higher than in the rest of Europe: 80.1% of patients received an anticoagulant ± antiplatelet (AP) therapy (14.5% on vitamin K antagonists; 65.6% on NOAC), 10.7% AP therapy and 9.3% no antithrombotic therapy. Over time, we observed an increase in anticoagulant use and a decrease in AP use for stroke prevention. NOAC use in Belgium was the highest of Europe at the study start, with many countries catching up later. In high stroke risk patients (CHA₂DS₂-VASc ≥2), anticoagulants were used in 84.3%, leaving 15.7% unprotected. In low risk patients (CHA₂DS₂-VASc 0-1) anticoagulants were overused (58.7%). Factor Xa inhibitors were used more frequently than direct thrombin inhibitors. Conclusion: Guideline adherence on stroke prevention was higher in Belgium than in the rest of Europe, and increased over time. NOAC use in Belgium was the highest of Europe at the study start, with many countries catching up later. Possible reasons are discussed. Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01090362.

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

BACKGROUND

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been included in international guidelines as important alternatives to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, NOACs are widely used next to VKAs. The objective of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with rivaroxaban compared to VKAs in NVAF and VTE patients in the Netherlands, using data from international prospective observational phase IV studies.

METHODS

Two models were developed to represent NVAF and VTE patients, populated with patients from the XANTUS (NCT01606995) and XALIA (NCT01619007) international prospective observational studies. The 1-year cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban use, compared to VKAs, was explored in a population consisting of NVAF and VTE patients (base case) as well as for four scenarios with sub-populations: NVAF patients only, VTE patients only, NVAF patients with unstable international normalized ratio (INR), and NVAF patients using an INR self-measuring device.

RESULTS

In the base case, rivaroxaban saved €72,350 and gained 21 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in a simulation of 2,000 patients over the use of VKAs. Ergo, rivaroxaban was dominant over VKAs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a probability of 85% for rivaroxaban being dominant and 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/QALY. Rivaroxaban appeared to be dominant in all scenarios as well, except for the NVAF-patients-only scenario where the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €157/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with NVAF or VTE, rivaroxaban treatment is likely to be cost-effective and a potentially cost-saving alternative to VKA in the Netherlands.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban for Treatment of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism in Greece

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprising deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major healthcare concern that results in substantial morbidity and mortality with great economic burden for healthcare systems. Hence, the need for effective and efficient treatment of patients with VTE is important for both clinical and economic reasons. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared to standard of care (SoC) with enoxaparin followed by dose-adjusted vitamin-K antagonists for the treatment of DVT and PE in Greece.

METHODS

An existing Markov model was locally adapted from a third-party payer perspective to reflect the management and complications of DVT and PE in the course of 3-month cycles, up to death. The clinical inputs and utility values were extracted from published studies. Direct medical costs, obtained from local resources, were incorporated in the model and refer to year 2017. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was carried out to deal with uncertainty.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis showed that rivaroxaban in 3- and 6-month treatment duration for DVT and PE, respectively, as this is the common clinical practice in Greece, was associated with a 0.02 and 0.01 increment in QALYs compared to SoC, respectively. Rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced total cost in DVT (€85) but with an additional total cost in PE (€2) compared to SoC. Therefore, rivaroxaban was a dominant (less costly, more effective) and cost-effective (ICER: €177) alternative over SoC for the management of DVT and PE, respectively. PSA revealed that the probability of rivaroxaban being cost effective at a threshold of €34,000 per QALY gained was 99% and 81% for DVT and PE, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban may represent a cost-effective option relative to SoC for the management of DVT and PE in Greece.

Delivering Diabetes Education through Nurse-Led Telecoaching. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes have a high risk of developing micro- and macrovascular complications associated with diminished life expectancy and elevated treatment costs. Patient education programs can improve diabetes control in the short term, but their cost-effectiveness is uncertain. Our study aimed to analyze the lifelong cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led telecoaching program compared to usual care in people with type 2 diabetes from the perspective of the Belgian healthcare system.

METHODS

The UKPDS Outcomes Model was populated with patient-level data from an 18-month randomized clinical trial in the Belgian primary care sector involving 574 participants; trial data were extrapolated to 40 years; Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), treatment costs and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were calculated for the entire cohort and the subgroup with poor glycemic control at baseline ("elevated HbA1c subgroup") and the associated uncertainty was explored.

RESULTS

The cumulative mean QALY (95% CI) gain was 0.21 (0.13; 0.28) overall and 0.56 (0.43; 0.68) in elevated HbA1c subgroup; the respective incremental costs were €1,147 (188; 2,107) and €2,565 (654; 4,474) and the respective ICERs €5,569 (€677; €15,679) and €4,615 (1,207; 9,969) per QALY. In the scenario analysis, repeating the intervention for lifetime had the greatest impact on the cost-effectiveness and resulted in the mean ICERs of €13,034 in the entire cohort and €7,858 in the elevated HbA1c subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Taking into account reimbursement thresholds applied in West-European countries, nurse-led telecoaching of people with type 2 diabetes may be considered highly cost-effective within the Belgian healthcare system.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01612520.

Safety of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Clinical Practice: Focus on Rivaroxaban in Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Despite direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have overcome the most relevant limitations of vitamin K antagonists, many patients with atrial fibrillation are not receiving the appropriate anticoagulant therapy. In addition, when patients are anticoagulated with DOACs, some of them are not taking the dose recommended in the summary of product characteristics. This may be related, at least in part, to the concern about the applicability of findings from randomized clinical trials to real-life patients. In this context, performing studies in daily clinical practice to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs in real-world setting is mandatory. The aim of this review is to update the current evidence regarding safety of rivaroxaban in clinical practice. The Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET-AF) showed that rivaroxaban was at least as effective as warfarin for preventing stroke or systemic embolism, with similar rates of major bleeding but with lesser risk of intracranial and fatal bleedings. Data from noninterventional studies and registries have confirmed the good results of ROCKET-AF. Even more, rates of bleeding may be inferior in real-life patients, since they have a lower risk profile than those included in ROCKET-AF.

Clinical and economic impact of rivaroxaban on the burden of atrial fibrillation: The case study of Japan

OBJECTIVES

Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects an estimated 1.5 million individuals in Japan, increasing their stroke risk and imposing considerable costs on the Japanese healthcare system. To reduce stroke incidence, guidelines recommend using anticoagulants in moderate-to-high risk non-valvular AF (NVAF) patients; however, many patients receive no treatment, aspirin only, or remain poorly-controlled on vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) due to high VKA discontinuation rates and non-adherence to guidelines. A prevalence-based Markov model was developed to estimate the clinical and budgetary impact of treating these patients with Xarelto(TM) (rivaroxaban, Bayer AG) in Japan.

METHODS

Population, baseline risk of events, and associated management costs were estimated using data from Japanese publications where available. Treatment efficacy and safety were derived from published data and the J-ROCKET AF trial. Drug and physician visit costs were based on data from the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare, the J-ROCKET AF trial, and Japanese clinical guidelines.

RESULTS

This model demonstrates that increased use of rivaroxaban in inadequately-managed NVAF patients could avoid 456 081 non-fatal ischemic strokes (IS) and 76 975 cardiovascular deaths over 10 years in Japan. This clinical benefit offsets the increased incidence of myocardial infarctions and anticoagulant-related bleeding. Decreased event costs could lead to a ¥188.4 billion decrease in net spending over the analysis time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing rivaroxaban may decrease the burden of NVAF in Japanese society. From a clinical perspective, the reduction in IS and embolic events outweighs the increased risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding; from an economic perspective, reduced event costs offset drug and physician visit costs, resulting in cost savings.

Novel oral anticoagulants for the secondary prevention of cerebral ischemia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have shown to be both safe and effective for ischemic stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) using published data from secondary prevention subgroups of different phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing individual NOACs with warfarin.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and SCOPUS and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. First, we conducted a pairwise meta-analysis for each pairwise comparison, and then we performed NMA to combine direct and indirect evidence for any given pair of treatments. The comparative effects of all NOACs against warfarin were ranked with the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve for each outcome.

RESULTS

We identified four RCTs (including 15,240 patients) comparing individual NOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban) with warfarin. Using indirect evidence, dabigatran was related to a significantly lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke compared with rivaroxaban [risk ratio (RR) 0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11-0.75], while rivaroxaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding compared with dabigatran (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.74). We also performed clustered ranking plot for the primary efficacy and safety endpoints to identify the treatment with the probably best benefit-to-risk ratio profile.

CONCLUSIONS

The three NOACs showed differences in terms of safety and efficacy for secondary stroke prevention in NVAF. Our findings can serve only as hypothesis generation and require independent confirmation in head-to-head RCTs, owing to the sparse available evidence and increased uncertainty in both indirect effect estimates and ranking of treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US

BACKGROUND

Understanding the value of new anticoagulation therapies compared with existing therapies is of paramount importance in today's cost-conscious and efficiency-driven health care environment. Edoxaban and rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with CHADS2 scores ≥2 have been evaluated in pivotal trials versus warfarin. The relative value of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban would be of interest to health care stakeholders and patients who prefer a once-daily treatment option for long-term stroke prevention in NVAF.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of two once-daily regimens of novel oral anticoagulation therapy - edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) versus rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) - for stroke prevention in NVAF patients from a US health-plan perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model simulated lifetime risk and treatment of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death in NVAF patients treated with edoxaban or rivaroxaban. Efficacy and safety data were derived from a network meta-analysis that utilized data from patients enrolled in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 and ROCKET-AF. Health care cost and utility data were obtained from published sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used as thresholds for "highly cost-effective", "cost-effective", and "not cost-effective" treatment options, respectively, as per American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines.

RESULTS

Edoxaban was dominant relative to rivaroxaban, such that it was associated with lower total health care costs and better effectiveness in terms of QALYs in the base-case analysis. Results were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analyses that showed edoxaban as either dominant or a highly cost-effective alternative (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000) to rivaroxaban in 88.4% of 10,000 simulations.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study showed that the once-daily edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) regimen is a cost-saving or highly cost-effective treatment relative to rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) for stroke prevention in NVAF patients with CHADS2 ≥2.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban versus Acenocoumarol in the Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation in Spain

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate, from the Spanish National Health System perspective, the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban (20 mg/day) versus use of acenocoumarol (5 mg/day) for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) at moderate to high risk for stroke. Methods: A Markov model was designed and populated with local cost estimates, efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in stroke prevention in NVAF compared with adjusted-dose warfarin clinical results from the pivotal phase III ROCKET AF trial and utility values obtained from the literature. Warfarin and acenocoumarol were assumed to have therapeutic equivalence. Results: Rivaroxaban treatment was associated with fewer ischemic strokes and systemic embolisms (0.289 vs. 0.300 events), intracranial bleeds (0.051 vs. 0.067), and myocardial infarctions (0.088 vs. 0.102) per patient compared with acenocoumarol. Over a lifetime time horizon, rivaroxaban led to a reduction of 0.041 life-threatening events per patient, and increases of 0.103 life-years and 0.155 quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs) versus acenocoumarol treatment. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7045 per QALY and €10 602 per life-year gained. Sensitivity analysis indicated that these results were robust and that rivaroxaban is cost-effective compared with acenocoumarol in 89.4% of cases should a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30 000/QALY gained be considered. Conclusions: The present analysis suggests that rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to acenocoumarol therapy for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolisms in patients with NVAF in the Spanish healthcare setting.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and atrial fibrillation guidelines in practice: barriers to and strategies for optimal implementation

Stroke is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an independent risk factor for stroke, increasing the risk five-fold. Strokes in patients with AF are more likely than other embolic strokes to be fatal or cause severe disability and are associated with higher healthcare costs, but they are also preventable. Current guidelines recommend that all patients with AF who are at risk of stroke should receive anticoagulation. However, despite this guidance, registry data indicate that anticoagulation is still widely underused. With a focus on the 2012 update of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of AF, the Action for Stroke Prevention alliance writing group have identified key reasons for the suboptimal implementation of the guidelines at a global, regional, and local level, with an emphasis on access restrictions to guideline-recommended therapies. Following identification of these barriers, the group has developed an expert consensus on strategies to augment the implementation of current guidelines, including practical, educational, and access-related measures. The potential impact of healthcare quality measures for stroke prevention on guideline implementation is also explored. By providing practical guidance on how to improve implementation of the ESC guidelines, or region-specific modifications of these guidelines, the aim is to reduce the potentially devastating impact that stroke can have on patients, their families and their carers.

Cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in German patients with atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of the novel fixed-dose anticoagulant rivaroxaban compared with the current standard of care, warfarin, for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to model the costs and health outcomes of both treatments, potential adverse events, and resulting health states over 35 years. Analyses were based on a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with non-valvular AF at moderate to high risk of stroke. The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over the lifetime, and was assessed from the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) perspective. Costs and utility data were drawn from public data and the literature, while event probabilities were derived from both the literature and rivaroxaban's pivotal ROCKET AF trial.

RESULTS

Stroke prophylaxis with rivaroxaban offers health improvements over warfarin treatment at additional cost. From the SHI perspective, at baseline the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of rivaroxaban was <euro>15,207 per QALY gained in 2014. The results were robust to changes in the majority of variables; however, they were sensitive to the price of rivaroxaban, the hazard ratios for stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, the time horizon, and the discount rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that the substantially higher medication costs of rivaroxaban were offset by mitigating the shortcomings of warfarin, most notably frequent dose regulation and bleeding risk. Future health economic studies on novel oral anticoagulants should evaluate the cost effectiveness for secondary stroke prevention and, as clinical data from direct head-to-head comparisons become available, new anticoagulation therapies should be compared against each other.

Effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on health care costs among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients: observations from rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users

Introduction

New target-specific oral anticoagulants may have benefits, such as shorter hospital length of stay, compared to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study aimed to assess, among patients with NVAF, the effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on health care costs in a cohort of rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users.

Methods

Health care claims from the Humana database from 5/2011 to 12/2012 were analyzed. Adult patients newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥2 atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnoses (The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification: 427.31) and without valvular AF were identified. Based on propensity score methods, warfarin patients were matched 1:1 to rivaroxaban patients. Patients were observed up to end of data, end of insurance coverage, death, a switch to another anticoagulant, or treatment nonpersistence. Health care costs [hospitalization, emergency room (ER), outpatient, and pharmacy costs] were evaluated using Lin’s method.

Results

Matches were found for all rivaroxaban patients, and characteristics of the matched groups (n = 2253 per group) were well balanced. Estimated mean all-cause and AF-related hospitalization costs were significantly lower for rivaroxaban versus warfarin patients (all-cause: $5411 vs. $7427, P = 0.047; AF-related: $2872 vs. $4147, P = 0.020). Corresponding estimated mean all-cause outpatient visit costs were also significantly lower, but estimated mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher for rivaroxaban patients ($5316 vs. $2620, P < 0.001). Although estimated mean costs of ER visits were higher for rivaroxaban users compared to those of warfarin users, differences were not statistically significant. Including anticoagulant costs, mean overall total all-cause costs were comparable for rivaroxaban versus warfarin users due to cost offset from a reduction in the number and length of hospitalizations and number of outpatient visits ($17,590 vs. $18,676, P = 0.542).

Conclusion

Despite higher anticoagulant cost, mean overall total all-cause and AF-related cost remains comparable for patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin due to the cost offset from reduced health care resource utilization.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0189-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Novel oral anticoagulants are emerging options for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic diseases. They are increasingly used in clinical practice due to their simplicity of use and clinical benefits, but an important step is to evaluate their cost-effectiveness. The aim of the AFFORD study (A Review of Cost EFFectiveness of Novel ORal Anticoagulant Drugs) was to perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted by searching the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Knowledge databases to identify all cost-effectiveness studies of novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in AF.

RESULTS

The search identified 27 studies, 18 with dabigatran, three with apixaban, two with rivaroxaban and four with at least two of these drugs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 30 405 ± 16 101 euros per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for dabigatran 110 mg, 17 566 ± 16 902 euros/QALY for dabigatran 150 mg, 8102 ± 3252 euros/QALY for age-adjusted dabigatran, 11 897 ± 3341 euros/QALY for apixaban and 17 960 ± 12 005 euros/QALY for rivaroxaban.

CONCLUSION

The present systematic review demonstrates that novel oral anticoagulants are cost-effective for stroke prevention in AF.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in the Portuguese setting

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

To project the long-term cost-effectiveness of treating non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients for stroke prevention with rivaroxaban compared to warfarin in Portugal.

METHODS

A Markov model was used that included health and treatment states describing the management and consequences of AF and its treatment. The model's time horizon was set at a patient's lifetime and each cycle at three months. The analysis was conducted from a societal perspective and a 5% discount rate was applied to both costs and outcomes. Treatment effect data were obtained from the pivotal phase III ROCKET AF trial. The model was also populated with utility values obtained from the literature and with cost data derived from official Portuguese sources. The outcomes of the model included life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costs, and associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Extensive sensitivity analyses were undertaken to further assess the findings of the model. As there is evidence indicating underuse and underprescription of warfarin in Portugal, an additional analysis was performed using a mixed comparator composed of no treatment, aspirin, and warfarin, which better reflects real-world prescribing in Portugal.

RESULTS

This cost-effectiveness analysis produced an ICER of €3895/QALY for the base-case analysis (vs. warfarin) and of €6697/QALY for the real-world prescribing analysis (vs. mixed comparator). The findings were robust when tested in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that rivaroxaban may be a cost-effective alternative compared with warfarin or real-world prescribing in Portugal.

Rivaroxaban for the Long-term Treatment of Spontaneous Ovarian Vein Thrombosis Caused by Factor V Leiden Homozygosity

OBJECTIVE

To report a case where rivaroxaban was used in the management of an ovarian vein thrombosis and to briefly review the literature, pathophysiology, and clinical implications therein.

CASE SUMMARY

A 30-year-old previously healthy woman was diagnosed with acute, spontaneous, left-ovarian vein thrombosis (OVT) with proximal extension into the renal vein. After initial catheter-directed thrombolysis with tPA, angioplasty of the left renal vein, and heparinoid treatment, rivaroxaban was begun for long-term anticoagulation. Three months after her index event she was symptom free, with complete resolution of her thrombosis and no adverse effects or bleeding complications from rivaroxaban. To our knowledge, this is the first report of OVT successfully treated with rivaroxaban.

DISCUSSION

OVT is a rare but potentially fatal cause of abdominal pain that may pose diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas. Factor V Leiden (FVL) homozygosity, an uncommon but severe inherited thrombophilia, increases the risk of thrombosis by approximately 50- to 80-fold. This case report and accompanying literature review highlight important clinical pearls related to the diagnosis and management of OVT and inherited thrombophilias.

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical vignette adds to the published literature suggesting that novel oral anticoagulants, such as rivaroxaban, may eventually emerge as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of extra-axial thromboses. Reporting these cases is important because their prevalence is low outside of specialized referral centers, and thus, dissemination of these experiences may help other providers in treating their patients.

Economic evaluation of rivaroxaban in stroke prevention for patients with atrial fibrillation in Greece

Background

To undertake an economic evaluation of rivaroxaban relative to the standard of care for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) in Greece.

Methods

An existing Markov model designed to reflect the natural progression of AF patients through different health states, in the course of three month cycles, was adapted to the Greek setting. The analysis was undertaken from a payer perspective. Baseline event rates and efficacy data were obtained from the ROCKET-AF trial for rivaroxaban and vitamin-K-antagonists (VKAs). Utility values for events were based on literature. A treatment-related disutility of 0.05 was applied to the VKA arm. Costs assigned to each health state reflect the year 2013. An incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated where the outcome was quality-adjusted-life year (QALY) and life-years gained. Probabilistic analysis was undertaken to deal with uncertainty. The horizon of analysis was over patient life time and both cost and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%.

Results

Based on safety-on-treatment data, rivaroxaban was associated with a 0.22 increment in QALYs compared to VKA. The average total lifetime cost of rivaroxaban-treated patients was €239 lower compared to VKA. Rivaroxaban was associated with additional drug acquisition cost (€4,033) and reduced monitoring cost (-€3,929). Therefore, rivaroxaban was a dominant alternative over VKA. Probabilistic analysis revealed that there is a 100% probability of rivaroxaban being cost-effective versus VKA at a willingness to pay threshold of €30,000/QALY gained.

Conclusion

Rivaroxaban may represent for payers a dominant option for the prevention of thromboembolic events in moderate to high risk AF patients in Greece.