Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin plus a vitamin K antagonist for the treatment of venous thromboembolism

Healthcare utilization and expenditures among patients with venous thromboembolism following gastrointestinal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

We sought to assess healthcare utilization and expenditures among patients who developed venous thromboembolism (VTE) after gastrointestinal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgery for esophageal, gastric, hepatic, biliary duct, pancreatic, and colorectal cancer between 2013 and 2020 were identified using the MarketScan database. Entropy balancing was performed to obtain a cohort that was well balanced relative to different clinical covariates. Generalized linear models were used to compare 1-year postdischarge costs among patients who did and did not develop a postoperative VTE.

RESULTS

Among 20,253 individuals in the analytical cohort (esophagus [n = 518 {2.6%}], stomach [n = 970 {4.8%}], liver [n = 608 {3.0%}], bile duct [n = 294 {1.5%}], pancreas [n = 1511 {7.5%}], colon [n = 12,222 {60.3%}], and rectum [n = 4130 {20.4%}]), 894 (4.4%) developed VTE. Overall, most patients were male (n = 10,656 [52.6%]), aged between 55 and 64 years (n = 10,372 [51.2%]), and were employed full time (n = 11,408 [56.3%]). On multivariable analysis, VTE was associated with higher inpatient (mean difference [MD], $17,547; 95% CI, $15,141-$19,952), outpatient (MD, $8769; 95% CI, $7045-$10,491), and pharmacy (MD, $2811; 95% CI, $2509-$3113) expenditures (all P < .001). Furthermore, patients who developed VTE had higher out-of-pocket costs for inpatient (MD, $159; 95% CI, $66-$253) and pharmacy (MD, $122; 95% CI, $109-$136) services (all P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Among privately insured patients aged <65 years, VTE was associated with increased healthcare utilization and expenditures during the first year after discharge.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ultra-Hypofractionated Whole Breast Radiation Therapy Alone Versus Hormone Therapy Alone or Combined Treatment for Low-Risk ER-Positive Early Stage Breast Cancer in Women Aged 65 Years and Older

PURPOSE

The optimal management of early-stage, low-risk, hormone-positive breast cancer in older women remains controversial. Recent trials have shown that 5-fraction ultrahypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (U-WBI) has similar outcomes to longer courses, reducing the cost and inconvenience of treatment. We performed a cost-utility analysis to compare U-WBI to hormone therapy alone or their combination.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We simulated 3 different treatment approaches for women age 65 years or older with pT1-2N0 ER-positive invasive ductal carcinoma treated with lumpectomy with negative margins using a Markov microsimulation model. The strategies were U-WBI performed with a 3-dimensional conformal technique over 5 fractions without a boost ("radiation therapy [RT] alone"), adjuvant hormone therapy (anastrozole for 5 years) without RT ("aromatase-inhibitor [AI] alone"), or the combination of the 2. The combination strategy was calibrated to match trial results, and the relative effectiveness of the RT alone and AI alone strategies were inferred from previous randomized trials. The primary endpoint was the cost-effectiveness of the 3 strategies over a lifetime horizon as measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with a value of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year deemed "cost-effective."

RESULTS

The model results compared with the prespecified target outcomes. On average, RT alone was the least expensive strategy ($14,775), with AI alone slightly more ($14,998), and combination therapy the costliest ($19,802). RT alone dominated AI alone (the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] -$5089). Combination therapy, compared with RT alone, was slightly more expensive than our definition of cost-effective (ICER $113,468) but was cost-effective compared with AI alone (ICER $54,451). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated RT alone to be cost-effective in 50% of trials, with combination therapy in 36% and AI alone in 14%.

CONCLUSIONS

U-WBI alone appears the more cost-effective de-escalation strategy for these low-risk patients, compared with AI alone. Combining U-WBI and AI appears more costly but may be preferred by some patients.

Comparison between rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following spine surgeries, a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Enoxaparin is currently used for VTE prophylaxis. Rivaroxaban is more cost-effective and is as potent as enoxaparin in VTE prophylaxis.

METHODS

The study was held at Al-Zahra and Kashani university hospitals in Isfahan, Iran, from January 2019 to October 2020. Two hundred ninety-six patients requiring instrumented spine surgery were enrolled; 23 were excluded (lack of consent/interfering medical situations). They were randomized into the groups of rivaroxaban (case, n = 137) and enoxaparin receiving (control, n = 136). Medical data were recorded and 244 patients (case = 123, control = 121) were analyzed value < 0.05 was meaningful.

RESULTS

150 patients were males, and 94 were females. The mean age was 52.09 ± 12.6 years. Postoperative drain volume was higher in rivaroxaban received patients than in enoxaparin (p = 0.02). Post-operation epidural hematoma was detected in 3 patients in the case and 1 in the control group, which was not meaningful(p = 0.622). All of them were evacuated surgically. POH was associated with cervical canal stenosis surgery, existing comorbidities, and new medical events. New medical events were associated with postoperative wound dehiscence (p = 0.001). Short and long-term postoperative outcomes were similar in both groups. The mean follow-up duration was 25.8 ± 7.5 months.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban is as effective as enoxaparin in venous thromboembolic event prophylaxis. Regarding postoperative epidural hematoma, statistical analysis showed equal safety of both drugs. Still, the authors would like to recommend more discretion in rivaroxaban administration in cervical spine laminectomy until future studies are conducted.

Effect of different initial anticoagulant strategies on short-term outcome of patients with symptomatic DVT in China

PURPOSE

In ambulant patients with lower limb DVT managed with Warfarin, there is a need for initial treatment and short time "bridging" with a rapidly acting anticoagulant until there is a stable therapeutic INR. In this study, results from bridging with subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or oral Rivaroxaban were compared.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-four patients received LMWH and 98 patients received Rivaroxaban, both in addition to Warfarin. Patients were assessed at 1 and 4 weeks after treatment initiation for thrombus progression, bleeding, clinic attendance and INR.

FINDINGS

The treatment groups were well matched. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups for any of the end-points at either 1 week or 4 weeks.

IMPLICATIONS

In ambulant patients with DVT treated with Warfarin both Rivaroxaban and LMWH are suitable for use in the early phase of Warfarin treatment until therapeutic INR is achieved. Rivaroxaban is a suitable alternative to LMWH for patients who prefer not to have injections.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of No Adjuvant Therapy Versus Partial Breast Irradiation Alone Versus Combined Treatment for Treatment of Low-Risk DCIS: A Microsimulation

PURPOSE

Adjuvant therapy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ who undergo partial mastectomy remains controversial, particularly for low-risk patients (60 years or older, estrogen-positive, tumor extent < 2.5 cm, grade 1 or 2, and margins ≥ 3 mm). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing three strategies: no adjuvant treatment after surgery, a five-fraction course of accelerated partial breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (accelerated partial breast irradiation [APBI]-alone), or APBI plus an aromatase inhibitor for 5 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Outcomes including local recurrence, distant metastases, and survival as well as toxicity data were modeled by a patient-level Markov microsimulation model, which were validated against trial data. Costs of treatment and possible adverse events were included from the societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, adjusted to 2019 US dollars and extracted from Medicare reimbursement data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated based on utilities extracted from the literature.

RESULTS

No adjuvant therapy was the least costly approach ($5,744), followed by APBI-alone ($11,070); combined therapy was costliest ($16,052). Adjuvant therapy resulted in slightly higher QALYs (no adjuvant, 11.320; APBI-alone, 11.343; and combination, 11.381). In the base case, no treatment was the cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $239,109/QALY for APBI-alone and $171,718/QALY for combined therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for combined therapy compared with APBI-alone was $131,949. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found that no therapy was cost effective (defined as $100,000/QALY of lower) in 63% of trials, APBI-alone in 19%, and the combination in 18%.

CONCLUSION

No adjuvant therapy represents the most cost-effective approach for postmenopausal women 60 years or older who receive partial mastectomy for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ.

American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), occurs in ∼1 to 2 individuals per 1000 each year, corresponding to ∼300 000 to 600 000 events in the United States annually.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about treatment of VTE.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and adult patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 28 recommendations for the initial management of VTE, primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent VTE events.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include the use of thrombolytic therapy for patients with PE and hemodynamic compromise, use of an international normalized ratio (INR) range of 2.0 to 3.0 over a lower INR range for patients with VTE who use a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for secondary prevention, and use of indefinite anticoagulation for patients with recurrent unprovoked VTE. Conditional recommendations include the preference for home treatment over hospital-based treatment for uncomplicated DVT and PE at low risk for complications and a preference for direct oral anticoagulants over VKA for primary treatment of VTE.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin plus warfarin for the treatment of hospitalised acute deep vein thrombosis in China

OBJECTIVE

Limited economic evaluation data for rivaroxaban compared with standard of care (SoC) exists in China. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with current SoC (enoxaparin overlapped with warfarin) for the treatment of acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was adapted from a payer's perspective to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients with DVT treated with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin/warfarin. Clinical data from the EINSTEIN-DVT trial were obtained to estimate the transition probabilities. Data on Chinese health resource use, unit costs and utility parameters were collected from previously published literature and used to estimate the total costs and QALYs. The time horizon was set at 5 years and a 3-month cycle length was used in the model. A 5% discount rate was applied to the projected costs. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess the impact of uncertainty on results.

RESULTS

Rivaroxaban therapy resulted in an increase of 0.008 QALYs and was associated with lower total costs compared with enoxaparin/warfarin (US$4744.4 vs US$5572.4, respectively), demonstrating it to be a cost-saving treatment strategy. The results were mainly sensitive to length of hospitalisation due to DVT on enoxaparin/warfarin, cost per day of hospitalisation and the difference in length of stay of rivaroxaban-treated and enoxaparin/warfarin-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban therapy resulted in a cost saving compared with enoxaparin/warfarin for the anticoagulation treatment of patients with hospitalised acute DVT in China.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00440193; Post-results.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endocrine therapy alone versus partial-breast irradiation alone versus combined treatment for low-risk hormone-positive early-stage breast cancer in women aged 70 years or older

PURPOSE

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of three strategies for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer in women age 70 years or older: an aromatase inhibitor (AI-alone) for 5 years, a 5-fraction course of accelerated partial-breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (APBI-alone), or their combination.

METHODS

We constructed a patient-level Markov microsimulation from the societal perspective. Effectiveness data (local recurrence, distant metastases, survival), and toxicity data were obtained from randomized trials when possible. Costs of side effects were included. Costs were adjusted to 2019 US dollars and extracted from Medicare reimbursement data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated using utilities extracted from the literature.

RESULTS

The strategy of AI-alone ($12,637) was cheaper than both APBI-alone ($13,799) and combination therapy ($18,012) in the base case. All approaches resulted in similar QALY outcomes (AI-alone 7.775; APBI-alone 7.768; combination 7.807). In the base case, AI-alone was the cost-effective strategy and dominated APBI-alone, while combined therapy was not cost-effective when compared to AI-alone ($171,451/QALY) or APBI-alone ($107,932/QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, AI-alone was cost-effective at $100,000/QALY in 50% of trials, APBI-alone in 28% and the combination in 22%. Scenario analysis demonstrated that APBI-alone was more effective than AI-alone when AI compliance was lower than 26% at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a Markov microsimulation analysis, both AI-alone and APBI-alone are appropriate options for patients 70 years or older with early breast cancer with small cost differences noted. A prospective trial comparing the approaches is warranted.

Rivaroxaban treatment for young patients with pulmonary embolism (Review)

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a serious, life-threatening condition that affects young populations (>18 and <50 years old, according to most literature reviews) with improved recognition of its clinical manifestations and the widespread use of sensitive imaging techniques, PE is increasingly diagnosed in younger patients. At present, there is limited understanding of the clinical features and adequate anticoagulant treatment options for this population. Most studies to date have yet to demonstrate significant differences in PE pathophysiology or symptoms between young and elderly patients. Although the overall incidence of PE is lower in young populations compared with elderly patients, important risk factors also apply for young patients. Hereditary thrombophilia is common and is a major cause of PE in younger patients. Immobilization, trauma, obesity, smoking and infection are also becoming increasingly frequent in young patients with PE. Among female patients, oral contraceptive use, pregnancy and postpartum status are predominant risk factors underlying PE. Rivaroxaban is a direct oral anticoagulant with a rapid onset of action that is associated with less drug-drug interactions compared with other therapies. Because the drug is administered at fixed doses with no requirement for routine coagulation monitoring, it is becoming an attractive option for anticoagulation treatment in young patients with PE. Therefore, the present literature review focuses on the clinical characteristics of PE and rivaroxaban therapy in younger patients.

Age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and a non-high pretest probability, the use of an age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff (AADD, <500 ng/mL up to 50 years, then

METHODS

We created a decision tree to compare the use of the AADD with the standard D-dimer cutoff. The model included short-term venous thromboembolism-related events and long-term complications, their associated morbidity/mortality, and costs. Probabilities were derived from published literature and the ADJUST-PE study, and costs from US estimates. The time horizon was lifetime, with a health care system perspective.

RESULTS

Using the AADD cutoff, compared with the standard cutoff, was associated with a loss of 0.0001 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and an average cost reduction of $33.4. The decremental cost-effectiveness ratio (DCER) was +$282 881/lost QALY (95% confidence interval from +$43 209/lost QALY to a dominant strategy). The probability that the use of the AADD cutoff was either dominant or gained >$200 000/lost QALY was 79.4%. In sensitivity analyses, the DCER became <+$200 000/lost QALY only if, among patients with D-dimer below the AADD cutoff, the mortality of an undiagnosed PE was >6% or the prevalence of PE was >0.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The AADD cutoff results in a clinically nonsignificant decrease in QALY but important costs reductions. It is a decrementally cost-effective innovation, with a potential of cost savings of >$80 million per year for the United States health care system.

Collapse

Key Words

• biomarker
• cost-benefit analysis
• diagnosis
• fibrin fragment D
• pulmonary embolism

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Angiography
• Cost-Benefit Analysis
• Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products
• Humans
• Pulmonary Embolism/diagnosis

Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Marc Blondon Division of Angiology and Haemostasis, Faculty of Medicine and Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
Gregoire Le Gal Department of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada
Guy Meyer Department of Respiratory Disease, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, APHP, Paris, France Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
Marc Righini Division of Angiology and Haemostasis, Faculty of Medicine and Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
Helia Robert-Ebadi Division of Angiology and Haemostasis, Faculty of Medicine and Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

Collapse

Current status of rivaroxaban in elderly patients with pulmonary embolism (Review)

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) occurs with a high incidence rate in elderly patients, demonstrating complex clinical manifestations, as well as a difficult anticoagulant treatment strategy. Currently, there is limited understanding of the selection criteria for anticoagulant treatment in elderly patients with PE. In fact, the vitamin K antagonist warfarin, a commonly prescribed anticoagulant, has multiple disadvantages, including a narrow therapeutic range, unpredictable pharmacokinetics, multiple food and drug interactions and genetic polymorphisms resulting in poor response to this therapy; therefore, routine laboratory monitoring is required. Most elderly patients with PE fail to adhere to the treatment regimen or even discontinue it, and clinicians are equally hesitant to initiate oral anticoagulants in elderly patients with PE. This leads to a dilemma regarding the use of anticoagulation therapies and a worse prognosis for the patients. Rivaroxaban, a direct Xa factor inhibitor, has demonstrated considerable practical and clinical advantages, exhibits fast-start action pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics, and has an enhanced predictable anticoagulant effect with fewer drug-drug interactions. Based on randomized controlled trials and real-world clinical practice, rivaroxaban has also been recognized as a safe and effective anticoagulant, and these advantages have improved the therapeutic compliance of elderly patients with PE. Thus, this review focused on the current status of rivaroxaban treatment for elderly patients with PE, and described its significance in changing the current anticoagulation treatment regimens for patients. It is expected that rivaroxaban will become a good choice for the treatment of PE in elderly patients.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus apixaban for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism and extended prevention of recurrences in the UK

Aim: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of using rivaroxaban vs apixaban for the initial treatment plus extended prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the UK. Extended prevention was assessed using a 10-mg rivaroxaban dose, as the 20-mg dose has already been evaluated. Methods: A Markov model compared the health outcomes and costs of treating VTE patient cohorts with either rivaroxaban (15 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, followed by 20 mg once daily for 6 months, then extended prevention with 10 mg once daily) or apixaban (10 mg twice daily for 1 week, followed by 5 mg twice daily for 6 months, then extended prevention with 2.5 mg twice daily) over a lifetime horizon. The model included an initial acute treatment and prevention phase (0-6 months) and an extended prevention phase (6-18 months). Efficacy and safety data were derived from two network meta-analyses. Reference treatment comparators were derived from the EINSTEIN-Pooled study and EINSTEIN-CHOICE trial. Healthcare costs and utility data were derived from published literature. Results: The rivaroxaban regimen was associated with increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and slightly lower total costs compared with apixaban over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that rivaroxaban remained a cost-effective alternative to apixaban over a wide range of parameters. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were below the £20,000 per QALY threshold in 74.1% of 2,000 model simulations. Scenario analyses further supported that rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to apixaban. Limitations: Clinical and safety inputs were derived from network meta-analysis, which are subject to inherent limitations whereby small differences between study designs may severely impact efficacy and safety outcomes. Furthermore, these inputs were based on data from clinical trials, which may not reflect real-world data. Conclusions: Rivaroxaban was associated with a slightly lower total cost and increased QALYs compared with apixaban for VTE management in the UK over a lifetime horizon.

Extended Treatment with Apixaban for Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Netherlands: Clinical and Economic Effects

Background  Dutch guidelines advise extended anticoagulant treatment with direct oral anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists for patients with idiopathic venous thromboembolism (VTE) who do not have high bleeding risk.

Objectives  The aim of this study was to analyze the economic effects of extended treatment of apixaban in the Netherlands, based on an updated and adapted previously published model.

Methods  We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis simulating a population of 1,000 VTE patients. The base-case analysis compared extended apixaban treatment to no treatment after the first 6 months. Five additional scenarios were conducted to evaluate the effect of different bleeding risks and health care payers' perspective. The primary outcome of the model is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in costs (€) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with one QALY defined as 1 year in perfect health. To account for any influence of the uncertainties in the model, probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted. The treatment was considered cost-effective with an ICER less than €20,000/QALY, which is the most commonly used willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for preventive drugs in the Netherlands.

Results  The model showed a reduction in recurrent VTE and no increase in major bleeding events for extended treatment in all scenarios. The base-case analysis showed an ICER of €9,653/QALY. The probability of being cost-effective for apixaban in the base-case was 70.0% and 91.4% at a WTP threshold of €20,000/QALY and €50,000/QALY, respectively.

Conclusion  Extended treatment with apixaban is cost-effective for the prevention of recurrent VTE in Dutch patients.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Low-risk Pulmonary Embolism Patients Treated with Rivaroxaban versus Standard of Care

BACKGROUND

Rivaroxaban, a fixed-dose oral direct factor Xa inhibitor, does not require continuous monitoring and thus reduces the hospital stay and economic burden in low-risk pulmonary embolism (LRPE) patients. Study Question: What is the effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus the standard of care (SOC; low-molecular-weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, warfarin) among LRPE patients in the Veterans Health Administration?

STUDY DESIGN

Adult patients with continuous health plan enrollment for ≥12 months pre- and 3 months post-inpatient PE diagnosis (index date=discharge date) between October 1, 2011-June 30, 2015 and an anticoagulant claim during the index hospitalization were included.

MEASURES AND OUTCOMES

Patients scoring 0 points on the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Stratification Index were considered low-risk and were stratified into SOC and rivaroxaban cohorts. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare hospital-acquired complications (HACs), PE-related outcomes (recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and death), and healthcare utilization and costs between the rivaroxaban and SOC cohorts.

RESULTS

Among 6746 PE patients, 1918 were low-risk; of these, 73 were prescribed rivaroxaban, 1546 were prescribed SOC, and 299 were prescribed other anticoagulants during the index hospitalization. After 1:3 PSM, 64 rivaroxaban and 192 SOC patients were included. During the index hospitalization, rivaroxaban users (versus SOC) had similar inpatient length of stay (LOS; 7.0 vs 6.7 days, standardized difference [STD]=1.8) but fewer HACs (4.7% vs 10.4%; STD: 21.7). In the 90-day post-discharge period, PE-related outcome rates were similar between the cohorts (all p>0.05). However, rivaroxaban users had fewer outpatient (15.9 vs 20.4; p=0.0002) visits per patient as well as lower inpatient ($765 vs $2,655; p<0.0001), pharmacy ($711 vs $1,086; p=0.0033), and total costs ($6,270 vs $9,671; p=0.0027).

CONCLUSIONS

LRPE patients prescribed rivaroxaban had similar index LOS and PE-related outcomes, but fewer HACs, and lower total costs than those prescribed SOC.

Retrospective cohort study for evaluating the INR monitoring patterns in patients with deep vein thrombosis in daily practice: Analysis of 2010-2013 database of a tertiary care center

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring patterns in patients with deep vein thrombosis.

METHODS

Of 32,012 patients with ≥1 outpatient INR measurement and 42,582 patients with confirmed deep vein thrombosis diagnosis registered to our hospital between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013, 6720 records were identified to have both deep vein thrombosis and international normalized ratio measurement, and 4.377 out of 6.720 single patient records were determined to be statistically analyzable.

RESULTS

Median INR measurement frequency was 6.47 times/year and patients had INR levels of 2-3 in 34.3% of follow-up time. Having ≥70% vs. <70% of follow-up time within therapeutic range was associated with lower hospital admission frequency (9.7 vs. 10.3 times/year).

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed only one-third of the follow-up time to be spent within therapeutic INR, association of INR therapeutic range with lesser number of hospital admissions and INR monitoring frequency of 6.47 times/year despite lack of stable INR control in most of the deep vein thrombosis patients.

Multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis: a consensus on diagnosis, traditional therapy and therapy with rivaroxaban

Despite the availability of updated guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), the management of this disorder in clinical practice is often not standardized, given the different degree of compliance with official recommendations by the various involved specialists. The aim of this consensus paper, as a result of a board of experts in thromboembolism, is to define strategies to improve the quality of patients' care and the efficiency of healthcare resources utilization, by means of: (a) analysis of the guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of VTE; (b) analysis of diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms currently used in clinical practice by different specialists; (c) agreement on a common algorithm for diagnosis and treatment of VTE in different clinical settings; (d) definition of the possible role of the new oral anticoagulant agents (NOAC), such as rivaroxaban, based on their potential benefits for both acute and chronic therapy. The so-called "single drug approach" (as opposed to the traditional heparin/VKA combination), which can be adopted with these drugs, makes anticoagulation more convenient for both patients and healthcare providers, without the need for a close monitoring of the hemocoagulative status, and with a concomitant reduction of length of hospitalization and treatment costs. Among NOACs, in this paper we focused on rivaroxaban only because it was the unique available NOAC in Italy for the treatment of VTE at the time the manuscript was written. Concerning rivaroxaban, the results of two phase III, randomized and controlled trials confirm the non-inferiority of this drug compared to standard therapy (enoxaparin/warfarin) for the treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism (EINSTEIN PE Study) or deep vein thrombosis (EINSTEIN DVT Study) in terms of both efficacy and safety, supporting its use as an effective therapeutic option for these disorders.

Health Care Costs and Thromboembolic Events in Hydroxyurea-Treated Patients with Polycythemia Vera

BACKGROUND

Patients with polycythemia vera (PV) are at increased risk of thromboembolic events (TEs), which are key contributors to reduced overall survival compared with the age- and sex-matched general population. In addition to aspirin and phlebotomy to maintain hematocrit level < 45%, many patients receive cytoreduction with hydroxyurea (HU), which is associated with improved survival and may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and TEs. However, 1 in 4 patients become resistant to or intolerant of HU. In the general population, prophylaxis and treatment following arterial and venous thromboses are associated with increased health care resource utilization and costs.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the health care resource utilization and costs associated with TEs in patients with PV treated with HU in the United States.

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Research Databases included adult patients with a PV diagnosis who were newly treated with HU and continuously enrolled in medical and pharmacy benefit plans for ≥ 12 months pre- and post-index. HU treatment administration, persistence, adherence, and related adverse events, as well as TEs, were reported during the 12-month follow-up period. HU treatment patterns were further analyzed in a subgroup analysis comparing patients with and without a ≥ 45-day gap in HU treatment. Health care resource utilization and costs were analyzed in a subgroup analysis comparing patients who had TEs in the 12-month follow-up period with those who did not. Tests for statistically significant differences across the comparison groups were conducted, including chi-square tests for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables.

RESULTS

The records of 1,322 patients with PV were included in this study. Mean age was 66.0 years; 51.3% were men; and 14.0% had a history of TEs. During the first year of HU treatment, 764 (57.8%) patients had a treatment gap of ≥ 45 days; however, treatment adherence was similar between those with and those without a gap (85.2% vs. 90.7%, respectively). TEs occurred in 216 (16.3%) patients within 12 months of HU initiation. Health care resource utilization was higher for patients with TEs versus those without, including the proportion of patients requiring inpatient services (50.9% vs. 18.4%; P < 0.001) and emergency room visits (48.1% vs. 26.3%; P < 0.001) and the mean number of inpatient admissions (1.7 vs. 1.3; P = 0.004); office visits (18.9 vs. 14.1; P < 0.001); and prescriptions (45.8 vs. 36.2; P<0.001). In addition, total mean health care costs ($45,040 vs. $16,438; P < 0.001); inpatient costs ($18,952 vs. $4,794; P < 0.001); outpatient costs ($20,844 vs. $8,046; P < 0.001); and outpatient pharmacy costs ($5,244 vs. $3,598; P = 0.002) were higher among patients with TEs than those without.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PV receiving treatment with HU remain at risk for TEs. The occurrence of TEs during the 12-month follow-up in this patient population was associated with higher health care resource utilization and costs.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Parasuraman and Paranagama are employees and stockholders of Incyte Corporation. Shi and Bonafede are employees of Truven Health Analytics, which was awarded a research contract to conduct this study with and on behalf of Incyte Corporation. Study concept and design were contributed by all of the authors, who also interpreted the data and wrote and revised the manuscript. Bonafede and Shi collected the data. This study was presented as an abstract at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy NEXUS Annual Meeting on October 26-29, 2015, in Orlando, Florida.

Cost comparison of continued anticoagulation with rivaroxaban versus placebo based on the 1-year EINSTEIN-Extension trial efficacy and safety results

AIMS

The EINSTEIN-Extension trial (EINSTEIN-EXT) found that continued treatment with rivaroxaban for an additional 6 or 12 months (vs placebo) after 6-12 months of initial anticoagulation significantly reduced the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) with a small non-significant increased risk of major bleeding (none fatal or in critical site). This study aimed to compare total healthcare cost between rivaroxaban and placebo, based on the EINSTEIN-EXT event rates.

METHODS

Total healthcare cost was calculated as the sum of treatment and clinical event costs from a US managed care perspective. Treatment duration and event rates were obtained from the EINSTEIN-EXT study. Adjustment on treatment duration was made by assuming a 10% non-adherence rate. Drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Cost estimates for clinical events (i.e. recurrent deep vein thrombosis [DVT], recurrent pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding) were determined from the literature. Results were examined over a ±20% range of each cost component and over 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of event rate differences in deterministic (one-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

RESULTS

Total healthcare cost was $1,454 lower for rivaroxaban-treated (vs placebo-treated) patients in the base-case, with a lower clinical event cost fully offsetting drug cost. The cost savings of recurrent DVT alone (-$3,102) was greater than drug cost ($2,723). Total healthcare cost remained lower for rivaroxaban in the majority (73%) of PSA (cost difference [95% CI] = -$1,454 [-$2,396, $1,231]).

LIMITATIONS

This study was conducted over the 1-year observation period of the EINSTEIN-EXT trial, which limited "real-world" applicability and examination of long-term economic impact. Assumptions on drug and clinical event costs were US-based and, thus, not applicable to other healthcare systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Total healthcare costs were estimated to be lower for patients continuing rivaroxaban therapy compared to those receiving placebo in VTE patients who had completed 6-12 months of VTE treatment.

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.

Oral anticoagulants for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease, and for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Warfarin is effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but anticoagulation is underused in clinical care. The risk of venous thromboembolic disease during hospitalisation can be reduced by low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH): warfarin is the most frequently prescribed anticoagulant for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Warfarin-related bleeding is a major reason for hospitalisation for adverse drug effects. Warfarin is cheap but therapeutic monitoring increases treatment costs. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have more rapid onset and offset of action than warfarin, and more predictable dosing requirements.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the best oral anticoagulant/s for prevention of stroke in AF and for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of VTE.

DESIGN

Four systematic reviews, network meta-analyses (NMAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of randomised controlled trials.

SETTING

Hospital (VTE primary prevention and acute treatment) and primary care/anticoagulation clinics (AF and VTE secondary prevention).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients eligible for anticoagulation with warfarin (stroke prevention in AF, acute treatment or secondary prevention of VTE) or LMWH (primary prevention of VTE).

INTERVENTIONS

NOACs, warfarin and LMWH, together with other interventions (antiplatelet therapy, placebo) evaluated in the evidence network.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Efficacy Stroke, symptomatic VTE, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis and symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Safety Major bleeding, clinically relevant bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage. We also considered myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality and evaluated cost-effectiveness.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, reference lists of published NMAs and trial registries. We searched MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. The stroke prevention in AF review search was run on the 12 March 2014 and updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2010 to September 2014. The search for the three reviews in VTE was run on the 19 March 2014, updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2008 to September 2014.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers screened search results, extracted and checked data, and assessed risk of bias. For each outcome we conducted standard meta-analysis and NMA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using discrete-time Markov models.

RESULTS

Apixaban (Eliquis^®, Bristol-Myers Squibb, USA; Pfizer, USA) [5 mg bd (twice daily)] was ranked as among the best interventions for stroke prevention in AF, and had the highest expected net benefit. Edoxaban (Lixiana^®, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan) [60 mg od (once daily)] was ranked second for major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Neither the clinical effectiveness analysis nor the CEA provided strong evidence that NOACs should replace postoperative LMWH in primary prevention of VTE. For acute treatment and secondary prevention of VTE, we found little evidence that NOACs offer an efficacy advantage over warfarin, but the risk of bleeding complications was lower for some NOACs than for warfarin. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of > £5000, apixaban (5 mg bd) had the highest expected net benefit for acute treatment of VTE. Aspirin or no pharmacotherapy were likely to be the most cost-effective interventions for secondary prevention of VTE: our results suggest that it is not cost-effective to prescribe NOACs or warfarin for this indication.

CONCLUSIONS

NOACs have advantages over warfarin in patients with AF, but we found no strong evidence that they should replace warfarin or LMWH in primary prevention, treatment or secondary prevention of VTE.

LIMITATIONS

These relate mainly to shortfalls in the primary data: in particular, there were no head-to-head comparisons between different NOAC drugs.

FUTURE WORK

Calculating the expected value of sample information to clarify whether or not it would be justifiable to fund one or more head-to-head trials.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005324, CRD42013005331 and CRD42013005330.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

European Union-28: An annualised cost-of-illness model for venous thromboembolism

Annual costs for venous thromboembolism (VTE) have been defined within the United States (US) demonstrating a large opportunity for cost savings. Costs for the European Union-28 (EU-28) have never been defined. A literature search was conducted to evaluate EU-28 cost sources. Median costs were defined for each cost input and costs were inflated to 2014 Euros (€) in the study country and adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity between EU countries. Adjusted costs were used to populate previously published cost-models based on adult incidence-based events. In the base model, annual expenditures for total, hospital-associated, preventable, and indirect costs were €1.5–2.2 billion, €1.0–1.5 billion, €0.5–1.1 billion and €0.2–0.3 billion, respectively (indirect costs: 12 % of expenditures). In the long-term attack rate model, total, hospital-associated, preventable, and indirect costs were €1.8–3.3 billion, €1.2–2.4 billion, €0.6–1.8 billion and €0.2–0.7 billion (indirect costs: 13 % of expenditures). In the multiway sensitivity analysis, annual expenditures for total, hospital-associated, preventable, and indirect costs were €3.0–8.5 billion, €2.2–6.2 billion, €1.1–4.6 billion and €0.5–1.4 billion (indirect costs: 22 % of expenditures). When the value of a premature life-lost increased slightly, aggregate costs rose considerably since these costs are higher than the direct medical costs. When evaluating the models aggregately for costs, the results suggests total, hospital-associated, preventable, and indirect costs ranging from €1.5–13.2 billion, €1.0–9.7 billion, €0.5–7.3 billion and €0.2–6.1 billion, respectively. Our study demonstrates that VTE costs have a large financial impact upon the EU-28’s healthcare systems and that significant savings could be realised if better preventive measures are applied.

Benefit–risk profile of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in the management of venous thromboembolism

The prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a clinical challenge, primarily owing to drawbacks associated with the use of heparins and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). These and other factors, including a growing elderly population, mean that VTE presents a continuing burden to patients and physicians. Anticoagulant therapy is a fundamental approach for VTE management. Non- VKA oral anticoagulants, including the factor Xa inhibitors apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban, and the thrombin inhibitor dabigatran, have been studied in phase III trials across a spectrum of thromboembolic disorders. These agents offer simplified care, with similar or improved efficacy and safety outcomes compared with heparins and vitamin K antagonists. There are several factors a physician must consider when prescribing an anticoagulant. An important consideration with all anticoagulant use is bleeding risk, especially in high-risk groups such as the elderly or those with renal impairment or cancer. In orthopaedic patients, other risks include a need for surgical revision or blood transfusion, or wound complications. Therefore, the clinical benefits of an anticoagulant should ideally be balanced with any risks associated with the therapy. Quantitative benefit–risk assessments are lacking, and owing to differences in trial design the non-VKA oral anticoagulants cannot be compared directly. Based on trial and “reallife” data, this review will summarise the clinical data for the non-VKA oral anticoagulants in the prevention and treatment of VTE, focusing on the balance between the benefits and risks of anticoagulation with these drugs, and their potential impact on VTE management.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rivaroxaban for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Until recently, standard treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) concerned a combination of short-term low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and long-term vitamin-K antagonist (VKA). Risk of bleeding and the requirement for regular anticoagulation monitoring are, however, limiting their use. Rivaroxaban is a novel oral anticoagulant associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeds (hazard ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval = 0.37-0.79) compared to LMWH/VKA therapy, and does not require regular anticoagulation monitoring.

AIMS

To evaluate the health economic consequences of treating acute VTE patients with rivaroxaban compared to treatment with LMWH/VKA, viewed from the Dutch societal perspective.

METHODS

A life-time Markov model was populated with the findings of the EINSTEIN phase III clinical trial to analyze cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban therapy in treatment and prevention of VTE from a Dutch societal perspective. Primary model outcomes were total and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as life expectancy and costs.

RESULTS

Over a patient's lifetime, rivaroxaban was shown to be dominant, with health gains of 0.047 QALYs and cost savings of €304 compared to LMWH/VKA therapy. Dominance was robustly present in all sensitivity analyses. Major drivers of the differences between the two treatment arms were related to anticoagulation monitoring (medical costs, travel costs, and loss of productivity) and the occurrence of major bleeds.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism results in health gains and cost savings compared to LMWH/VKA therapy. This conclusion holds for the Dutch setting, both for the societal perspective, as well as the healthcare perspective.

A decision model to estimate a risk threshold for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients

Essentials Low risk patients don't require venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis; low risk is unquantified. We used a Markov model to estimate the risk threshold for VTE prophylaxis in medical inpatients. Prophylaxis was cost-effective for an average medical patient with a VTE risk of ≥ 1.0%. VTE prophylaxis can be personalized based on patient risk and age/life expectancy.

SUMMARY

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common preventable condition in medical inpatients. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for inpatients who are not at low risk of VTE, but no specific risk threshold for prophylaxis has been defined. Objective To determine a threshold for prophylaxis based on risk of VTE. Patients/Methods We constructed a decision model with a decision-tree following patients for 3 months after hospitalization, and a lifetime Markov model with 3-month cycles. The model tracked symptomatic deep vein thromboses and pulmonary emboli, bleeding events and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Long-term complications included recurrent VTE, post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary hypertension. For the base case, we considered medical inpatients aged 66 years, having a life expectancy of 13.5 years, VTE risk of 1.4% and bleeding risk of 2.7%. Patients received enoxaparin 40 mg day-1 for prophylaxis. Results Assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000/ quality-adjusted life year (QALY), prophylaxis was indicated for an average medical inpatient with a VTE risk of ≥ 1.0% up to 3 months after hospitalization. For the average patient, prophylaxis was not indicated when the bleeding risk was > 8.1%, the patient's age was > 73.4 years or the cost of enoxaparin exceeded $60/dose. If VTE risk was < 0.26% or bleeding risk was > 19%, the risks of prophylaxis outweighed benefits. The prophylaxis threshold was relatively insensitive to low-molecular-weight heparin cost and bleeding risk, but very sensitive to patient age and life expectancy. Conclusions The decision to offer prophylaxis should be personalized based on patient VTE risk, age and life expectancy. At a WTP of $100 000/QALY, prophylaxis is not warranted for most patients with a 3-month VTE risk below 1.0%.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus low molecular weight heparin/vitamin k antagonist for the treatment of venous thromboembolism and the prevention of recurrences

BACKGROUND

Prior analyses beyond clinical trials are yet to evaluate the projected lifetime benefit of apixaban treatment compared to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)/vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and prevention of recurrences. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of initial plus extended treatment with apixaban versus LMWH/VKA for either initial treatment only or initial plus extended treatment.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model was developed to evaluate the lifetime clinical and economic impact of treatment of VTE and prevention of recurrences with apixaban (starting at 10 mg BID for 1 week, then 5 mg BID for 6 months, then 2.5 mg BID for an additional 12 months) versus LMWH/VKA for 6 months and either no further treatment or extended treatment with VKA for an additional 12 months. Clinical event rates to inform the model were taken from the AMPLIFY and AMPLIFY-EXT trials and a network meta-analysis. Background mortality rates, costs, and utilities were obtained from published sources. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Service. The evaluated outcomes included the number of events avoided in a 1000-patient cohort, total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost per QALY gained.

RESULTS

Initial plus extended treatment with apixaban was superior to both treatment durations of LMWH/VKA in reducing the number of bleeding events, and was superior to initial LMWH/VKA for 6 months followed by no therapy, in reducing VTE recurrences. Apixaban treatment was cost-effective compared to 6-month treatment with LMWH/VKA at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6692 per QALY. When initial LMWH/VKA was followed by further VKA therapy for an additional 12 months (i.e., total treatment duration of 18 months), apixaban was cost-effective at an ICER of £8528 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis suggested these findings were robust over a wide range of inputs and scenarios for the model.

CONCLUSIONS

In the UK, initial plus extended treatment with apixaban for treatment of VTE and prevention of recurrences appears to be economical and a clinically effective alternative to LMWH/VKA, whether used for initial or initial plus extended treatment.

Rivaroxaban vs. warfarin on extended deep venous thromboembolism treatment: A cost analysis

Background

Standard treatment for deep venous thromboembolism involves parenteral anticoagulation overlapping with a vitamin K antagonist, an approach that is effective but associated with limitations including the need for frequent coagulation monitoring. The direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban is similarly effective to standard therapy as a single-drug treatment for venous thromboembolism and does not require routine coagulation monitoring. The aim of this analysis was to project the long-term costs and outcomes for rivaroxaban compared to standard of care (tinzaparin/warfarin).

Methods

A total of 184 patients who were under anticoagulant therapy with warfarin or rivaroxaban for extended deep venous thromboembolism were retrospectively evaluated; 59 received rivaroxaban and 125 received warfarin therapy. Assessments were made on age, gender, place of residence, the duration of anticoagulation, mean international normalized ratio value, the effective rate of international normalized ratio (time in the therapeutic range), bleeding-related complication rate, duration of hospitalization due to complications, the number of annual outpatient department admission, cost for drug, cost for hospitalization, cost for outpatient department admission and international normalized ratio measurements.

Results

The annual outpatient cost is higher in warfarin group (147.09 ± 78 vs. 62.32 ± 19.79 USD p < 0.001). But annual drug cost is higher in rivaroxaban group (362.6 vs. 71.55 ± 31.01 USD p < 0.001). Overall cost of rivaroxaban group is higher than warfarin group (476.25 ± 36.78 vs. 364.82 ± 174.44 USD). Warfarin is not cost-effective when non-drug costs (342.5 ± 174.44 vs. 113.65 ± 36.77) and hospital costs (173.85 ± 122.73 vs. 64.9 ± 23.55 USD) were analyzed.

Conclusion

This analysis suggests that rivaroxaban has lower costs than warfarin in terms of outpatient department admission and hospital costs due to complications; however, warfarin was more economic when all cost parameters were considered. Time in the therapeutic range was found as 56% for warfarin that should be taken into account while analyzing costs and benefits.

Low-molecular weight heparin versus vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis: A cost-effectiveness analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is primarily treated with low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH), a strategy based on studies showing it to be superior to the vitamin K antagonist (VKA) warfarin for preventing VTE recurrence. Subsequent analyses suggest that the magnitude of this benefit might be less than previously determined. Neither patient-focused measures of utility nor the costs of each strategy have been evaluated in the current treatment era.

METHODS

This is a cost-effectiveness analysis of VKA and LMWH for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis through use of a microsimulation model of outcomes for competing anticoagulation management strategies from a 2014 United States societal perspective.

RESULTS

LMWH therapy added 0.27 QALYs relative to VKA treatment with an ICER of $217,007. One-way sensitivity analysis evaluating the utility of LMWH revealed that VKA was always the preferred strategy at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Limitations include that the model incorporates a low VKA time in therapeutic range (TTR) and that the TTR in some centers may be higher thereby increasing the cost-effectiveness of the VKA strategy. Utilities for anticoagulation strategies were not derived from cancer patients, and preference is known to vary depending on how anticoagulation method is integrated with cancer treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that compared to LMWH, warfarin is a more cost-effective strategy to treat cancer-associated VTE. Although LMWH is associated with a modest increase in life expectancy, this increase comes at significant cost.

Use of novel oral anticoagulant agents in venous thromboembolism

New oral anticoagulants (NOAC) serve as alternatives for patients currently using warfarin for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolic (VTE) disease. This article provides a brief summary of the clinical use of these drugs as well as a review of the landmark clinical trials which evaluated described their safety and efficacy. As more data becomes available, a fundamental understanding of these medications will be vital to cardiovascular practitioners managing patients with VTE.

Guidance for the practical management of warfarin therapy in the treatment of venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious and often fatal medical condition with an increasing incidence. The treatment of VTE is undergoing tremendous changes with the introduction of the new direct oral anticoagulants and clinicians need to understand new treatment paradigms. This article, initiated by the Anticoagulation Forum, provides clinical guidance based on existing guidelines and consensus expert opinion where guidelines are lacking. Well-managed warfarin therapy remains an important anticoagulant option and it is hoped that anticoagulation providers will find the guidance contained in this article increases their ability to achieve optimal outcomes for their patients with VTE Pivotal practical questions pertaining to this topic were developed by consensus of the authors and were derived from evidence-based consensus statements whenever possible. The medical literature was reviewed and summarized using guidance statements that reflect the consensus opinion(s) of all authors and the endorsement of the Anticoagulation Forum’s Board of Directors. In an effort to provide practical and implementable information about VTE and its treatment, guidance statements pertaining to choosing good candidates for warfarin therapy, warfarin initiation, optimizing warfarin control, invasive procedure management, excessive anticoagulation, subtherapeutic anticoagulation, drug interactions, switching between anticoagulants, and care transitions are provided.

Cost-effectiveness of Apixaban Versus Other Oral Anticoagulants for the Initial Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism and Prevention of Recurrence

PURPOSE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus rivaroxaban, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)/dabigatran, and LMWH/vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for the initial treatment and prevention of recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE).

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic effect of 6 months of treatment with apixaban versus other anticoagulants over a lifetime horizon. Network meta-analyses were conducted using the results of the Apixaban after the Initial Management of Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis with First-Line Therapy (AMPLIFY), EINSTEIN-pooled, and RE-COVER I and II trials for the following end points: recurrent VTE, major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and treatment discontinuations. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Service. The outcomes evaluated were the number of events avoided in a 1000-patient cohort, total costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost per QALY gained over a patient's lifetime.

FINDINGS

Treatment for 6 months with apixaban was projected to result in fewer recurrent VTE and bleeding events in comparison to rivaroxaban, LMWH/dabigatran, and LMWH/VKA. Apixaban was cost-effective compared with LMWH/VKA at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2520 per QALY gained and was a dominant (ie, lower costs and higher QALYs) alternative to either rivaroxaban or LMWH/dabigatran. Sensitivity analysis indicated that results were robust over a wide range of inputs.

IMPLICATIONS

The assessment of the effects and costs of apixaban in this study predicted that apixaban is a dominant alternative to rivaroxaban and LMWH/dabigatran and a cost-effective alternative to LMWH/VKA for 6 months of treatment of VTE and the prevention of recurrence.

Costs of hospital visits among patients with deep vein thrombosis treated with rivaroxaban and LMWH/warfarin

BACKGROUND

For many years, the standard of care for patients diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) bridging to an oral Vitamin-K antagonist (VKA). The availability of new non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOAC) agents as monotherapy may reduce the likelihood of hospitalization for DVT patients.

OBJECTIVE

To compare hospital visit costs of DVT patients treated with rivaroxaban and LMWH/warfarin.

METHODS

A retrospective claim analysis was conducted using the MarketScan Hospital Drug Database for care provided between January 2011 and December 2013. Adult patients using rivaroxaban or LMWH/warfarin with a primary diagnosis of DVT during the first day of a hospital visit were identified (i.e., index hospital visit). Based on propensity-score methods, historical LMWH/warfarin patients (i.e., patients who received LMWH/warfarin before the approval of rivaroxaban) were matched 4:1 to rivaroxaban patients. The hospital-visit cost difference between these groups was evaluated for the index hospital visit, as well as for total hospital-visit costs (i.e., including index and subsequent hospital visit costs).

RESULTS

All rivaroxaban users (n = 134) in the database were well-matched with four LMWH/warfarin users (n = 536). The mean hospital-visit costs were $5257 for the rivaroxaban cohort and $6764 in the matched-cohort of patients using LMWH/warfarin. The $1508 cost difference was statistically significant between cohorts (95% CI = [-$2296; -$580]; p-value = 0.002). Total hospital-visit costs were lower for rivaroxaban compared to LMWH/warfarin users within 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after index visit (significantly lower within 1 and 3 months, p-values <0.05) LIMITATIONS: Limitations were inherent to administrative-claims data, completeness of baseline characteristics, adjustments restricted to observational factors, and lastly the sample size of the rivaroxaban cohort.

CONCLUSION

The availability of rivaroxaban significantly reduced the costs of hospital visits in patients with DVT treated with rivaroxaban compared to LMWH/warfarin.

The economic burden of incident venous thromboembolism in the United States: A review of estimated attributable healthcare costs

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is an important cause of preventable mortality and morbidity. In this study, we summarize estimates of per-patient and aggregate medical costs or expenditures attributable to incident VTE in the United States. Per-patient estimates of incremental costs can be calculated as the difference in costs between patients with and without an event after controlling for differences in underlying health status. We identified estimates of the incremental per-patient costs of acute VTEs and VTE-related complications, including recurrent VTE, post-thrombotic syndrome, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, and anticoagulation-related adverse drug events. Based on the studies identified, treatment of an acute VTE on average appears to be associated with incremental direct medical costs of $12,000 to $15,000 (2014 US dollars) among first-year survivors, controlling for risk factors. Subsequent complications are conservatively estimated to increase cumulative costs to $18,000-23,000 per incident case. Annual incident VTE events conservatively cost the US healthcare system $7-10 billion each year for 375,000 to 425,000 newly diagnosed, medically treated incident VTE cases. Future studies should track long-term costs for cohorts of people with incident VTE, control for comorbid conditions that have been shown to be associated with VTE, and estimate incremental medical costs for people with VTE who do not survive. The costs associated with treating VTE can be used to assess the potential economic benefit and cost-savings from prevention efforts, although costs will vary among different patient groups.

Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism based on the Hokusai-VTE study

OBJECTIVE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with almost 300,000 deaths per year in the United States. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) offer an alternative to warfarin-based therapy without monitoring requirements and with fewer drug and food interactions. Edoxaban, a direct Xa inhibitor, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), based upon results of the Hokusai-VTE Phase 3 trial. The trial demonstrated that edoxaban administered once daily after initial treatment with heparin was non-inferior in reducing the risk of VTE recurrence and caused significantly less major and clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding compared to warfarin. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of adults with VTE.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was developed using patient-level data from the Hokusai-VTE trial, clinical event costs from real-world databases, and drug acquisition costs for warfarin of $0.36 and edoxaban of $9.24 per tablet.

RESULTS

From a U.S. health-care delivery system perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $22,057 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that edoxaban had an ICER <$50,000 per QALY gained relative to warfarin in 67% of model simulations. The result was robust to variation in key model parameters including the cost and disutility of warfarin monitoring.

CONCLUSION

Despite its higher drug acquisition cost, edoxaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin for the treatment of VTE.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dabigatran Compared to Vitamin-K Antagonists for the Treatment of Deep Venous Thrombosis in the Netherlands Using Real-World Data

Background

Vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs) present an effective anticoagulant treatment in deep venous thrombosis (DVT). However, the use of VKAs is limited because of the risk of bleeding and the necessity of frequent and long-term laboratory monitoring. Therefore, new oral anticoagulant drugs (NOACs) such as dabigatran, with lower rates of (major) intracranial bleeding compared to VKAs and not requiring monitoring, may be considered.

Objectives

To estimate resource utilization and costs of patients treated with the VKAs acenocoumarol and phenprocoumon, for the indication DVT. Furthermore, a formal cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran compared to VKAs for DVT treatment was performed, using these estimates.

Methods

A retrospective observational study design in the thrombotic service of a teaching hospital (Deventer, The Netherlands) was applied to estimate real-world resource utilization and costs of VKA monitoring. A pooled analysis of data from RE-COVER and RE-COVER II on DVT was used to reflect the probabilities for events in the cost-effectiveness model. Dutch costs, utilities and specific data on coagulation monitoring levels were incorporated in the model. Next to the base case analysis, univariate probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed.

Results

Real-world resource utilization in the thrombotic service of patients treated with VKA for the indication of DVT consisted of 12.3 measurements of the international normalized ratio (INR), with corresponding INR monitoring costs of €138 for a standardized treatment period of 180 days. In the base case, dabigatran treatment compared to VKAs in a cohort of 1,000 DVT patients resulted in savings of €18,900 (95% uncertainty interval (UI) -95,832, 151,162) and 41 (95% UI -18, 97) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained calculated from societal perspective. The probability that dabigatran is cost-effective at a conservative willingness-to pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY was 99%. Sensitivity and scenario analyses also indicated cost savings or cost-effectiveness below this same threshold.

Conclusions

Total INR monitoring costs per patient were estimated at minimally €138. Inserting these real-world data into a cost-effectiveness analysis for patients diagnosed with DVT, dabigatran appeared to be a cost-saving alternative to VKAs in the Netherlands in the base case. Cost savings or favorable cost-effectiveness were robust in sensitivity and scenario analyses. Our results warrant confirmation in other settings and locations.

Cost of Treating Venous Thromboembolism With Heparin and Warfarin Versus Home Treatment With Rivaroxaban

BACKGROUND

Target-specific anticoagulants such as rivaroxaban facilitate immediate discharge of low-risk venous thromboembolism (VTE; including deep vein thrombosis [DVT] and pulmonary embolism [PE]) allowing treatment at home instead of hospitalization.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to compare costs accrued over 6 months by patients diagnosed with low-risk VTE and treated at home with rivaroxaban versus usual care with heparin-warfarin.

METHODS

This case-control study calculated costs using the established charge-to-cost ratio from UB-04 billing claims of patients diagnosed at two metropolitan hospitals. Patients were defined as low risk by the Hestia criteria. All patients were anticoagulated for 6 months. Control patients were treated with usual care using low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and then warfarin. Case patients were treated with an initial dose of rivaroxaban in the ED followed by same-day discharge home with rivaroxaban. Medians were compared by Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

Fifty cases and 47 controls were identified. Groups were well matched according to mean age, Charlson comorbidity score, and proportions by sex and location of thrombus. For all VTEs, median hospital charges for 6 months after diagnosis were $11,128 (interquartile range [IQR] = $8,110 to $23,390) for controls, compared with $4,787 (IQR = $3,042 to $7,596) for cases (Mann-Whitney U-test p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses of the first week of therapy, PE, DVT, and inpatient pharmacy costs retained significance, with costs for rivaroxaban-treated PE patients 57% lower than control PE patients (p < 0.001) and 56% lower for DVT patients (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Cost of medical care was lower for low-risk VTE patients discharged immediately from the ED with rivaroxaban therapy compared with patients treated with LMWH-warfarin.

The current landscape of treatment options for venous thromboembolism: a focus on novel oral anticoagulants

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprising deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major cause of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare expenditure. Anticoagulant therapy is recommended for at least 3 months in patients with acute VTE to prevent recurrence. Conventional anticoagulants are associated with inherent limitations including route of administration, required monitoring and dose adjustments, potential for food-drug and drug-drug interactions, unpredictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and possible severe adverse events.

SCOPE

This manuscript reviews the pharmacology of the novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), and analyzes the differences in phase 3 clinical trial designs, outcomes, and specific patient populations investigated for the treatment of acute and prevention of secondary VTE.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in PubMed using the key words dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and venous thromboembolism in PubMed. The search included all years, English language, and peer-reviewed articles relating to phase 3 clinical trials, subanalyses, and meta-analyses of these NOACs for the treatment of acute VTE and secondary prevention.

FINDINGS

NOACs have demonstrated comparable efficacy and comparable or superior safety in large, randomized clinical trials in the treatment and prevention of VTE compared with conventional therapy. New oral anticoagulants, including the direct thrombin (dabigatran etexilate) and direct factor Xa inhibitors (rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban), have advantages over conventional agents such as oral administration at fixed doses, predictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, minimal potential for food-drug and drug-drug interactions, and lack of required monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

NOACs offer additional oral anticoagulation treatment options for patients with VTE.

Rivaroxaban: a review of its use in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism and the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism

Rivaroxaban (Xarelto(®)), an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor, is approved for the initial treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), as well as the prevention of recurrent DVT and PE. It is administered at a fixed oral dose and does not require routine coagulation monitoring. In the EINSTEIN-DVT and EINSTEIN-PE trials, in over 8,000 patients with DVT and/or PE, a single-drug approach with rivaroxaban was shown to be noninferior to standard therapy consisting of subcutaneous enoxaparin sodium overlapping with and followed by an oral dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonist (enoxaparin-VKA) with regard to the incidence of symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) after 3, 6 or 12 months of treatment. Rivaroxaban was generally well tolerated in patients with DVT or PE, with no significant between-group differences in clinically relevant bleeding between the rivaroxaban and enoxaparin-VKA groups. Notably, rivaroxaban was associated with a significantly lower rate of major bleeding compared with enoxaparin-VKA when EINSTEIN-DVT and EINSTEIN-PE data were pooled. Pharmacoeconomic analyses indicated that rivaroxaban may be a cost-effective alternative to enoxaparin-VKA for the treatment of DVT or PE and prevention of recurrent VTE. Extended prophylaxis with rivaroxaban reduced the incidence of symptomatic recurrent VTE to a greater extent than placebo in the EINSTEIN-Extension trial, but was associated with a non-significant increase in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding compared with placebo. In conclusion, rivaroxaban is a reasonable alternative to standard therapy for the treatment of DVT and PE, and as extended thromboprophylaxis.

Use of novel oral anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism and its considerations in Asian patients

Parenteral anticoagulation followed by warfarin has been conventionally used for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, there are numerous troublesome characteristics of warfarin that prompted the development of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for the treatment of VTE. Asians are reported to be at an increased risk of bleeding with warfarin, and while the reported incidence of VTE in Asians is lower than in Caucasians, the annual rate of VTE in Asia is rising along with the need for better oral anticoagulant options. Recently, several Phase III clinical trials with NOACs for the treatment and prevention of VTE recurrence have been published. For the treatment of VTE, the four NOACs - dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban - each showed comparable efficacy outcomes while resulting in better safety outcomes when compared with conventional treatment. In these trials, Asian patients had comparable efficacy and safety outcomes as other races, except in the edoxaban trial, in which the Asian subgroup had better safety profiles than other races, although further confirmation is necessary. For secondary prevention, dabigatran was compared with conventional treatment and showed similar efficacy and safety outcomes. When NOACs were compared with placebo for secondary prevention of VTE, they showed superior efficacy and increased bleeding except for apixaban, which showed comparable major bleeding and composite of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding rates as placebo. No significant differences in the outcomes based on race were observed in the Asian subgroups for secondary prevention. Therefore, NOACs can be used with similar efficacy and at least similar or superior safety compared with conventional treatment in the treatment of VTE, and at no increased risk in Asian patients.

Evolving use of new oral anticoagulants for treatment of venous thromboembolism

The new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), which include dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, are poised to replace warfarin for treatment of the majority of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). With a rapid onset of action and the capacity to be administered in fixed doses without routine coagulation monitoring, NOACs streamline VTE treatment. In phase 3 trials in patients with acute symptomatic VTE, NOACs have been shown to be noninferior to conventional anticoagulant therapy for prevention of recurrence and are associated with less bleeding. Rivaroxaban and dabigatran are already licensed for VTE treatment in the United States, and apixaban and edoxaban are under regulatory consideration for this indication. As the number of approved drugs increases, clinicians will need to choose the right anticoagulant for the right VTE patient. To help with this decision, this review (1) compares the pharmacologic profiles of the NOACs, (2) outlines the unique design features of the phase 3 trials that evaluated the NOACs for VTE treatment, (3) reviews the results of these trials highlighting similarities and differences in the findings, (4) provides perspective about which VTE patients should receive conventional treatment or are candidates for NOACs, and (5) offers suggestions about how to choose among the NOACs.