Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with venous thromboembolism in cancer patients treated with anticoagulants

Risk of Venous Thromboembolism by Cancer Type: A Network Meta-Analysis

Patients with cancer have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Comparing tumor-specific VTE risk is complicated by factors such as surgery, disease stage, and chemotherapy. Network meta-analysis (NMA) using cancer types as network nodes enabled us to estimate VTE rates by leveraging comparisons across cancer types while adjusting for baseline VTE risk in individual studies. This study was conducted to estimate the risk of VTE by cancer type and factors influencing VTE risk. The Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library repositories were systematically searched to identify clinical trials and observational studies published from 2005 to 2022 that assessed the risk of primary cancer-related VTE among two or more distinct cancer types. Studies with similar cancer populations and study methods reporting VTE occurring within 1 year of diagnosis were included in the NMA. Relative VTE rates across cancer types were estimated with random-effects Bayesian NMAs. Absolute VTE rates were calculated from these estimates using the average VTE incidence in lung cancer (the most frequently reported type) as the "anchor." From 2,603 records reviewed, 30 studies were included in this NMA. The general network described 3,948,752 patients and 18 cancer types: 3.1% experienced VTE within 1 year of diagnosis, with cancer-specific rates ranging from 0.7 to 7.4%. Consistent with existing VTE risk prediction tools, pancreatic cancer was associated with higher-than-average VTE risk. Other cancer types with high VTE risk were brain and ovarian cancers. The relative rankings of VTE risk for certain cancers changed based on disease stage and/or receipt of chemotherapy or surgery.

Trends and factors associated with outpatient anticoagulant treatment initiation among VTE patients with active cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer are at higher risk of recurrent VTE and mortality. Clinical guidelines recommend anticoagulant treatment for these patients. This study assessed trends in outpatient anticoagulant treatment and factors associated with this treatment initiation in outpatient setting among this high-risk patient population.

OBJECTIVE

To study trends and factors associated with anticoagulant treatment initiation among patients with VTE and cancer.

METHODS

VTE cancer patients age ≥65 were identified from the SEER-Medicare database from 01JAN2014-31DEC2019. Patients were enrolled for ≥6 months prior to their first VTE (i.e. index event) and without evidence of other reasons for anticoagulation (i.e., atrial fibrillation). Patients were also required to be enrolled for ≥30 days after index. Cancer status was identified from SEER or Medicare database in the 6 months pre- through 30 days post-VTE. Patients were classified into treated or untreated cohorts depending on whether they initiated outpatient anticoagulant treatment within 30 days post-index. The trends of treated vs. untreated were evaluated by quarter. Logistic regression was used to identify demographic-, VTE-, cancer- and comorbid-related factors associated with anticoagulant treatment initiation.

RESULTS

A total of 28,468 VTE-cancer patients met all study criteria. Of these, ~46 % initiated outpatient anticoagulant treatment within 30 days, and ~54 % did not. The above rates were stable from 2014 to 2019. Factors such as VTE diagnosis in inpatient setting, pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis, and pancreatic cancer were associated with increased odds whereas bleeding history and some comorbid factors were associated with decreased odds of initiating anticoagulant treatment.

CONCLUSION

Over half of VTE patients with cancer did not initiate outpatient anticoagulant treatment within the first 30-days after VTE diagnosis. This trend was stable from 2014 to 2019. A range of cancer-, VTE-, and comorbid-related factors were associated with the likelihood of the treatment initiation.

Comparative Analysis of All-Cause Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Among Venous Thrombosis Patients Without Cancer Prescribed Apixaban or VKAs in France

Introduction

The direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) apixaban has shown to have non-inferior efficacy and better safety than vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). We determined whether healthcare resource use (HCRU) and direct all-cause medical and non-medical costs in patients with VTE in France differed between VKAs and apixaban.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using French national health data from January 2013–June 2018 for anticoagulant-naïve adults hospitalized with VTE. All-cause costs and HCRU per patient per month (PPPM) were compared between apixaban and VKA cohorts created by 1:1 propensity score matching. Two-part models with bootstrapping were used to calculate marginal effects for costs and HCRU.

Results

The matched VKA and apixaban cohorts each comprised 7503 patients. Compared to VKAs, patients prescribed apixaban had significantly lower (P < 0.0001) mean all-cause costs PPPM for outpatient visits (€438.54 vs. €455.58), overall laboratory tests (€21.26 vs. €83.73), and hospitalizations (€249.48 vs. €343.82), but significantly higher (P < 0.0001) mean all-cause costs PPPM for overall drugs (€97.06 vs. €69.56) and medical procedures (€42.12 vs. €35.50). Mean total all-cause direct medical costs (€687.93 vs. €798.70) and total all-cause direct medical and non-medical costs (€771.60 vs. €883.66) were significantly lower (P < 0.0001) for apixaban. Mean HCRU PPPM showed similar trends. Subgroup analyses showed that, among patients with recurrent VTE, patients prescribed apixaban had significantly lower (P < 0.0001) all-cause costs PPPM for total medical costs (€17.26 vs. €18.12) and total all-cause direct medical and non-medical costs (€18.37 vs. €19.20) than patients prescribed VKAs. Similarly, among patients with bleeding, patients prescribed apixaban had significantly lower (P < 0.0001) all-cause costs PPPM for total medical costs (€15.34 vs. €32.61) and total all-cause direct medical and non-medical costs (€16.23 vs. €34.63) than patients prescribed VKAs.

Conclusion

Compared to VKAs, apixaban may be cost-saving in the treatment of patients hospitalized for acute VTE.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02200-7.

Update on Guidelines for the Prevention of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

Patients with cancer are at high risk of developing arterial and venous thromboembolism (VTE). They constitute 15% to 20% of the patients diagnosed with VTE. Depending on the type of tumor, cancer therapy, and presence of other risk factors, 1% to 25% of patients with cancer will develop thrombosis. The decision to start patients with cancer on primary thromboprophylaxis depends on patient preference, balancing risk of bleeding versus risk of thrombosis, cost, and adequate organ function. Currently, guidelines recommend against the use of routine primary thromboprophylaxis in unselected ambulatory patients with cancer. Validated risk assessment models can accurately identify patients at highest risk for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). This review summarizes the recently updated NCCN Guidelines for CAT primary prophylaxis, with a primarily focus on VTE prevention. Two main clinical questions that providers commonly encounter will also be addressed: which patients with cancer should receive primary thromboprophylaxis (both surgical and medical oncology patients) and how to safely choose between different anticoagulation agents.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus low molecular weight heparins for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been included in guidelines for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) to be extended to suitable cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of using DOACs and low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) for treating CAT from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the two strategies with a 6-month and 5-year time horizon. Input parameters were either sourced from the clinical trial, published literature. The primary outcome of the model was reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to test model uncertainty.

RESULTS

The 6-month cost of DOACs was $ 654.65 with 0.40 quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) while the 6-month cost of LMWHs was $USD 1719.31 with 0.37 QALYs. Similarly, treatment with DOACs had a lower cost ($USD 657.85 vs. $USD 1716.56) and more health benefits (0.40 QALYs vs. 0.37 QALYs) than treatment with LMWHs in a subgroup of patients with gastrointestinal malignancy. We found treatment with DOACs would result in a large reduction in cost ($USD 1447.22 vs. $USD 3374.70) but a small reduction in QALYs (3.07 QALYs vs. 3.09 QALYs) compared with LMWHs over a 5-year time frame, resulting in an ICER of $USD 112895.50/QALYs. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSION

As compared to LMWHs, DOACs can be a cost-saving anticoagulant choice for the treatment of CAT in the general oncology population and gastrointestinal malignancy population.

Cost of Venous Thromboembolic Disease in Patients with Lung Cancer: Costecat Study

Background: Patients with lung cancer (LC) are at significantly higher risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), which may lead to increased use of health resources and the cost of the disease management. The main aim of the study was to determine the cost of the management of VTE events in patients with LC treated with Low Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWH) in Spain. Methods: Costecat was an observational, ambispective pharmacoeconomic study. Patients with LC, with a first episode of VTE (symptomatic or incidental) in treatment with LMWH, were recruited from six third-level hospitals and followed up for six months. Sociodemographic, clinical and resource use variables of VTE-related implications and its treatment were collected. Direct healthcare costs and direct non-healthcare costs were recorded. Data collection was documented in an electronic case report. Costs (€2018) were estimated from the healthcare perspective. Statistical analysis was performed using the statistical program R 3.4.3 version (30 November 2017). Results: Forty-seven patients were included. Mean age was 65.4 years, 66.0% were male. The percentage of patients with LC who had metastatic disease was 78.7%. Twenty-three patients (48.9%) needed hospital admissions due to thromboembolic episode. Total average cost of patients with cancer associated VTE (CAT) was €10,969.6 per patient/semester. The hospitalizations represent 65.8% of total costs (7207.3 € SD 13,996.9 €), followed by LMWH therapy which represents 18.6% (2033.8 € SD:630.5 €). Conclusions: Venous thromboembolism episodes induce an economic impact on patients and healthcare systems. Direct healthcare costs are the major burden of the total cost, in which hospitalizations are the main drivers of cost.

Cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism

OBJECTIVES

In the 'Comparison of an Oral Factor Xa Inhibitor With Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Patients With Cancer With Venous Thromboembolism' (SELECT-D) trial, rivaroxaban showed relatively low venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence but higher bleeding compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer. We aim to calculate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk of recurrent VTE.

SETTING

We built a Markov model to calculate the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective over a 5-year time horizon for the Dutch healthcare setting.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical cohort of 1000 cancer patients with VTE entered the model with baseline characteristics based on the SELECT-D trial.

INTERVENTION

Six months of treatment with rivaroxaban (15 mg two times per day for first 3 weeks followed by 20 mg once daily) was compared with 6 months of treatment with dalteparin (200 IU/kg daily during month 1 followed by 150 IU/kg daily).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The robustness of the model was evaluated in probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses. A budget impact analysis was performed to calculate the total annual financial consequences for a societal perspective in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

In the base case and all scenarios, rivaroxaban were cost-saving while also slightly improving the patient's health, resulting in economically dominant ICERs. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 77.8% and 98.7% of the simulations showed rivaroxaban to be cost-saving and more effective for a 5-year and 6-month time horizon, respectively. Rivaroxaban can save up to €11 326 763 (CI €5 164 254 to €17 363 231) in approximately 8000 cancer patients with VTE per year compared with dalteparin based on a 1-year time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with rivaroxaban is economically dominant over dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk for recurrent VTE in the Netherlands. The use of rivaroxaban instead of dalteparin can save over €10 million per year, primarily driven by the difference in drug costs.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with venous thromboembolism recurrence in patients with cancer

Objective: Patients with cancer are at high risk for developing primary but also recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study examined healthcare utilization (HRU) and costs related to VTE recurrence among cancer patients.Methods: Medical and pharmacy claims from the Humana Database were used to compare HRU (outpatient visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and hospitalization days) and healthcare costs among cancer patients with a single VTE event (between 01/2013 and 06/2015) and those with recurrent VTE during the follow-up period (from initiation of anticoagulant therapy until end of eligibility or data availability). All-cause and VTE-related HRU and costs were evaluated using Poisson regression, and healthcare costs were compared using mean differences reported as per-patient-per-year (PPPY).Results: Of 2,428 newly diagnosed cancer patients who developed VTE, 413 (17.1%) experienced recurrent VTE during the follow-up period (mean = 9 months). Patients with recurrent VTE had higher all-cause and VTE-related HRU and costs compared to those without recurrence. Patients with recurrent VTE also had over 3.19-times more VTE-related hospitalizations (RR [95% CI] = 3.19 [2.93-3.47]), and 3.88-times more VTE-related hospitalization days (RR [95% CI] = 3.88 [3.74-4.02]) than patients without a VTE recurrence. Total VTE-related healthcare costs were $39,641 PPPY among patients with recurrent VTE, $29,142 higher compared to those without recurrence ($10,499 PPPY). This difference was mainly driven by hospitalization costs.Conclusion: Recurrent VTE among cancer patients is associated with significant HRU and healthcare costs, notably hospitalizations. Strategies to reduce VTE recurrence in patients with cancer can contribute to reducing healthcare cost.

Use of New Oral Anticoagulants / Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Malignant Patients

Vitamin K antagonists are being used in the last five decades as an effective anticoagulant. However, for the past few years, new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been introduced as newer anticoagulant agents, which are gradually replacing the previously used vitamin K antagonist. Yet, these agents have not fully replaced the use of warfarin and heparin. NOACs have few advantages over the vitamin K antagonist as they act on a specific factor of coagulation cascade rather than inhibiting the whole vitamin K synthesis. In this article, all the data has been searched electronically on PubMed and PRISMA guidelines were not followed. Instead, we used MOOSE statements and the data searched on PubMed was from articles published in the last five years. A total of 12,269 patients were observed;,out of which 64.19% had active cancer and 35.80% was observed as a control group comprised of both male or female participants. Approximately 61.14% were using NOACs, 42.83% were on warfarin, and 2.72% were on low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). The NOACs used in different patients were in the following percentages; edoxaban (6.81%), apixaban (5.28%), dabigatran (10.09%), and rivaroxaban (10.02%). The use of NOACs has been increasing day by day but these agents have not completely replaced the warfarin or heparin, because of some demerits associated with the use of warfarin and some conditions where these drugs should be avoided. All NOACs have either hepatic or renal clearance so the hepatic activity and creatinine clearance rate must be monitored before the start of NOACs. The drug interaction between anticancer drugs and NOACs is still not fully reported. The effects of NOACs in AF and VTE are therapeutically effective, but in oncology patients several other co-factors are also involved with the use of NOACs due to which, it is either contraindicated or in some cases dose adjustment is required. However, very little information has been collected and more investigation must be done in this perspective.