Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban versus no prophylaxis in high-risk patients after hospitalisation for COVID-19: an economic modelling study

Background

In patients at high risk of thromboembolism who were discharged after hospitalisation due to COVID-19, thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg/day for 35 days significantly improved clinical outcomes, reducing thrombotic events compared with no post-discharge anticoagulation. The present study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of this anticoagulation strategy.

Methods

Using the database of the MICHELLE trial, we developed a decision tree to estimate the cost-effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg/day for 35 days versus no thromboprophylaxis in high-risk post-discharge patients for COVID-19 through an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis.

Findings

318 patients in 14 centres in Brazil were enrolled in the primary MICHELLE trial. The mean age was 57.1 years (SD 15.2), 127 (40%) were women, 191 (60%) were men, and the mean body-mass index was 29.7 kg/m2 (SD 5.6). Rivaroxaban 10 mg per day orally for 35 days after discharge decreased the risk of events defined by the primary efficacy outcome by 67% (relative risk 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.90; p = 0.03). The mean cost for thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban was $53.37/patient, and no prophylaxis was $34.22/patient, with an incremental cost difference of $19.15. The effectiveness means obtained in the intervention group was 0.1457, while in the control group was 0.1421, determining an incremental QALY difference of 0.0036. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $5385.52/QALY.

Interpretation

Extended treatment with Rivaroxaban as thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge for high-risk patients with COVID-19 is a cost-effective treatment option.

Funding

Modest funding was provided by Science Valley Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.

Efficacy and safety of Ixekizumab vs. low-dose IL-2 vs. Colchicine vs. standard of care in the treatment of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-critical COVID-19: A pilot randomized clinical trial (STRUCK: Survival Trial Using Cytokine Inhibitors)

BACKGROUND

Cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring hospitalization continue to appear in vulnerable populations, highlighting the importance of novel treatments. The hyperinflammatory response underlies the severity of the disease, and targeting this pathway may be useful. Herein, we tested whether immunomodulation focusing on interleukin (IL)-6, IL-17, and IL-2, could improve the clinical outcomes of patients admitted with COVID-19.

METHODS

This multicenter, open-label, prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted in Brazil. Sixty hospitalized patients with moderate-to-critical COVID-19 received in addition to standard of care (SOC): IL-17 inhibitor (ixekizumab 80 mg SC/week) 1 dose every 4 weeks; low-dose IL-2 (1.5 million IU per day) for 7 days or until discharge; or indirect IL-6 inhibitor (colchicine) orally (0.5 mg) every 8 hours for 3 days, followed by 4 weeks at 0.5 mg 2x/day; or SOC alone. The primary outcome was accessed in the "per protocol" population as the proportion of patients with clinical improvement, defined as a decrease greater or equal to two points on the World Health Organization's (WHO) seven-category ordinal scale by day 28.

RESULTS

All treatments were safe, and the efficacy outcomes did not differ significantly from those of SOC. Interestingly, in the colchicine group, all participants had an improvement of greater or equal to two points on the WHO seven-category ordinal scale and no deaths or patient deterioration were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Ixekizumab, colchicine, and IL-2 were demonstrated to be safe but ineffective for COVID-19 treatment. These results must be interpreted cautiously because of the limited sample size.

Rivaroxaban Versus Enoxaparin for Thromboprophylaxis After major Gynecological Cancer Surgery: The VALERIA Trial : Venous thromboembolism prophylAxis after gynecoLogical pElvic cancer surgery with RIvaroxaban versus enoxAparin (VALERIA trial)

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention after major gynecological cancer surgery might be an alternative to parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Patients undergoing major gynecological cancer surgery were randomized at hospital discharge to receive rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily or enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 30 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a combination of symptomatic VTE and VTE-related death or asymptomatic VTE at day 30. The primary safety outcome was the incidence of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Two hundred and twenty-eight patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n  =  114)or enoxaparin (n  =  114). The trial was stopped due to a lower-than-expected event rate. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 3.51% of patients assigned to rivaroxaban and in 4.39% of patients assigned to enoxaparin (relative risk 0.80, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.90; p  =  0.7344). Patients assigned to rivaroxaban had no primary bleeding event, and 3 patients (2.63%) in the enoxaparin group had a major or CRNM bleeding event (hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.007 to 2.73; P  =  0.1963). In patients undergoing major gynecological cancer surgery, thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg daily for 30 days had similar rates of thrombotic and bleeding events compared to parenteral enoxaparin 40 mg daily. While the power is limited due to not reaching the intended sample size, our results support the hypothesis that DOACs might be an attractive alternative strategy to LMWH to prevent VTE in this high-risk population.

Rivaroxaban with Aspirin Versus Aspirin for Peripheral Arterial Disease and Intermittent Claudication. Rationale and Design of the COMPASS CLAUDICATION Trial

BACKGROUND

The COMPASS trial demonstrated that in patients with peripheral arterial disease, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin reduces the risk of major adverse limb events, but it is not known whether this combination can also improve symptoms in patients with intermittent claudication. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of the combination on claudication distance.

STUDY DESIGN

Eighty-eight patients with intermittent claudication will be randomized to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily or aspirin 100 mg once daily for 24 weeks. The primary outcome is the change in claudication distance from the baseline to 24 weeks, measured by 6 min walking test and treadmill test. The primary safety outcome is the incidence of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria.

SUMMARY

The COMPASS CLAUDICATION trial will provide high-quality evidence regarding the effect of the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin on claudication distance in patients with peripheral arterial disease.

Rivaroxaban versus no anticoagulation for post-discharge thromboprophylaxis after hospitalisation for COVID-19 (MICHELLE): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are at risk for thrombotic events after discharge; the role of extended thromboprophylaxis in this population is unknown.

METHODS

In this open-label, multicentre, randomised trial conducted at 14 centres in Brazil, patients hospitalised with COVID-19 at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism [IMPROVE] venous thromboembolism [VTE] score of ≥4 or 2-3 with a D-dimer >500 ng/mL) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive, at hospital discharge, rivaroxaban 10 mg/day or no anticoagulation for 35 days. The primary efficacy outcome in an intention-to-treat analysis was a composite of symptomatic or fatal venous thromboembolism, asymptomatic venous thromboembolism on bilateral lower-limb venous ultrasound and CT pulmonary angiogram, symptomatic arterial thromboembolism, and cardiovascular death at day 35. Adjudication was blinded. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The primary and safety analyses were carried out in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04662684.

FINDINGS

From Oct 8, 2020, to June 29, 2021, 997 patients were screened. Of these patients, 677 did not meet eligibility criteria; the remaining 320 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n=160 [50%]) or no anticoagulation (n=160 [50%]). All patients received thromboprophylaxis with standard doses of heparin during hospitalisation. 165 (52%) patients were in the intensive care unit while hospitalised. 197 (62%) patients had an IMPROVE score of 2-3 and elevated D-dimer levels and 121 (38%) had a score of 4 or more. Two patients (one in each group) were lost to follow-up due to withdrawal of consent and not included in the intention-to-treat primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in five (3%) of 159 patients assigned to rivaroxaban and 15 (9%) of 159 patients assigned to no anticoagulation (relative risk 0·33, 95% CI 0·12-0·90; p=0·0293). No major bleeding occurred in either study group. Allergic reactions occurred in two (1%) patients in the rivaroxaban group.

INTERPRETATION

In patients at high risk discharged after hospitalisation due to COVID-19, thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg/day for 35 days improved clinical outcomes compared with no extended thromboprophylaxis.

FUNDING

Bayer.

Medically Ill hospitalized Patients for COVID-19 THrombosis Extended ProphyLaxis with rivaroxaban ThErapy: Rationale and Design of the MICHELLE Trial

BACKGROUND

The devastating Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with a high prothrombotic state. It is unclear if the coagulation abnormalities occur because of the direct effect of SARS-CoV-2 or indirectly by the cytokine storm and endothelial damage or by a combination of mechanisms. There is a clear indication of in-hospital pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for every patient with COVID-19 after bleed risk assessment. However, there is much debate regarding the best dosage regimen, and there is no consensus on the role of extended thromboprophylaxis.

DESIGN

This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 35 ± 4 days versus no intervention after hospital discharge in COVID-19 patients who were at increased risk for VTE and have received standard parenteral VTE prophylaxis during hospitalization. The composite efficacy endpoint is a combination of symptomatic VTE, VTE-related death, VTE detected by bilateral lower limbs venous duplex scan and computed tomography pulmonary angiogram on day 35 ± 4 posthospital discharge and symptomatic arterial thromboembolism (myocardial infarction, nonhemorrhagic stroke, major adverse limb events, and cardiovascular death) up to day 35 ± 4 posthospital discharge. The key safety outcome is the incidence of major bleeding according to ISTH criteria.

SUMMARY

The MICHELLE trial is expected to provide high-quality evidence around the role of extended thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 and will help guide medical decisions in clinical practice.1.

Edoxaban for Venous Thromboembolism Treatment-The New Kid on The Block for Latin America. A Practical Guide

Edoxaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor (FXa), is the fourth direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) approved for clinical use in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Latin America, following global approvals for this indication. Edoxaban features some particular characteristics when compared to the previously approved DOACs. This review summarizes the main properties of edoxaban, the outcomes results of its pivotal global clinical trials and the peculiar clinical features of this compound. This practical guide aims to help Latin America clinicians understand edoxaban, its proper indication and its use for the appropriate patients with VTE.

Efficacy and Safety of a Biosimilar Versus Branded Enoxaparin in the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism Following Major Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized, Prospective, Single-Blinded, Multicenter Clinical Trial

Several biosimilar versions of enoxaparin are already approved and in use globally. Analytical characterization can establish good quality control in manufacturing, but they may not assure similarity in clinical outcomes between biosimilar and branded enoxaparin. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of biosimilar Cristália versus branded Sanofi enoxaparin in venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery at risk for VTE. In this randomized, prospective single-blind study, we compared Cristália enoxaparin (Ce), a biosimilar version, versus branded Sanofi enoxaparin (Se; at a dose of 40 mg subcutaneously per day postoperatively from 7 to 10 days) in 243 patients submitted to major abdominal surgery at risk for VTE for VTE prevention. The primary efficacy outcome was occurrence of VTE or death related to VTE. The principal safety outcomes were a combination of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Bilateral duplex scanning of the legs was performed from days 10 to 14, and follow-ups were performed up to 60 days after surgery. The incidence of VTE was 4.9% in the Cristália group and 1.1% in the Sanofi group (absolute risk difference = 3.80%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.4%-9.0%) yielding noninferiority since the 95% CI does not reach the prespecified value Δ = 20%. Clinically significant bleeding occurred in 9.9% in the Cristália group and in 5.5% in the Sanofi group (n.s. ). In conclusion, this study suggests that 40 mg once daily of Ce, a biosimilar enoxaparin, is as effective and safe as the branded Sanofi enoxaparin in the prophylaxis of VTE in patients submitted to major abdominal surgery at risk for VTE.