Medical costs in the US of clinical events associated with oral anticoagulant (OAC) use compared to warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients ≥75 and <75 years of age,based on the ARISTOTLE,RE-LY,and ROCKET-AF trials

Abstract

Objectives:

Based on clinical trials the oral anticoagulants (OACs) apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban are efficacious for reducing stroke risk for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Based on the clinical trials, this study evaluated the medical costs for clinical events among NVAF patients ≥75 and <75 years of age treated with individual OACs vs warfarin.

Methods:

Rates for primary and secondary efficacy and safety outcomes (i.e., clinical events) among NVAF patients receiving warfarin or each of the OACs were determined for NVAF populations aged ≥75 years and <75 years of age from the OAC vs warfarin trials. One-year incremental costs among patients with clinical events were obtained from published literature and inflation adjusted to 2010 costs. Medical costs, excluding medication costs, for clinical events associated with each OAC and warfarin were then estimated and compared.

Results:

Among NVAF patients aged ≥75, compared to warfarin, use of either apixaban or rivaroxaban was associated with a reduction in medical costs per patient year (apixaban?=??$825, rivaroxaban?=?$23), while dabigatran use was associated with increased medical costs of $180 per patient year. Among NVAF patients <75 years of age medical costs per patient year were estimated to be reduced ?$254, ?$367, and ?$88, for apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban, respectively, in comparison to warfarin.

Limitations:

This economic analysis was based on clinical trial data and, therefore, the direct application of the results to routine clinical practice will require further assessment.

Conclusions:

Difference in medical costs between OAC and warfarin treated NVAF patients vary by age group and individual OACs. Although reductions in medical costs for NVAF patients aged ≥75 and <75 were observed for those using either apixaban or rivaroxaban vs warfarin, the reductions were greater per patient year for both the older and younger NVAF populations using apixaban.     

Medical cost reductions associated with the usage of novel oral anticoagulants vs warfarin among atrial fibrillation patients,based on the RE-LY,ROCKET-AF,and ARISTOTLE trials

Abstract

Objective:

The randomized clinical trials, RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE, demonstrate that the novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are effective options for stroke prevention among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. This study aimed to evaluate the medical cost reductions associated with the use of individual NOACs instead of warfarin from the US payer perspective.

Methods:

Rates for efficacy and safety clinical events for warfarin were estimated as the weighted averages from the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF and ARISTOTLE trials, and event rates for NOACs were determined by applying trial hazard ratios or relative risk ratios to such weighted averages. Incremental medical costs to a US health payer of an AF patient experiencing a clinical event during 1 year following the event were obtained from published literature and inflation adjusted to 2010 cost levels. Medical costs, excluding drug costs, were evaluated and compared for each NOAC vs warfarin. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the influence of variations in clinical event rates and incremental costs on the medical cost reduction.

Results:

In a patient year, the medical cost reduction associated with NOAC usage instead of warfarin was estimated to be ?$179, ?$89, and ?$485 for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively. When clinical event rates and costs were allowed to vary simultaneously, through a Monte Carlo simulation, the 95% confidence interval of annual medical costs differences ranged between ?$424 and +$71 for dabigatran, ?$301 and +$135 for rivaroxaban, and ?$741 and ?$252 for apixaban, with a negative number indicating a cost reduction. Of the 10,000 Monte-Carlo iterations 92.6%, 79.8%, and 100.0% were associated with a medical cost reduction >$0 for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively.

Conclusions:

Usage of the NOACs, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban may be associated with lower medical (excluding drug costs) costs relative to warfarin, with apixaban having the most substantial medical cost reduction.     

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation in Belgium

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate (‘dabigatran’) vs vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the Belgian healthcare setting for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF).

Research design and methods:

A Markov model was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs VKAs in Belgium, whereby warfarin was considered representative for the VKA class. Efficacy and safety data were taken from the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial and a network meta-analysis. Local resource use and unit costs were included in the model. Effectiveness was expressed in Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs). The model outcomes were total costs, total QALYs, incremental costs, incremental QALYs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The level of International Normalized Ratio (INR) control and the use of other antithrombotic therapies observed in Belgian clinical practice were reflected in two scenario analyses.

Results:

In the base case analysis, total costs per patient were €13,333 for dabigatran and €12,454 for warfarin. Total QALYs per patient were 9.51 for dabigatran and 9.19 for warfarin. The corresponding ICER was €2807/QALY. The ICER of dabigatran was €970/QALY vs warfarin with real-world INR control and €5296/QALY vs a mix of warfarin, aspirin, and no treatment. Results were shown to be robust in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Limitations:

The analysis does not include long-term costs for clinical events, as these data were not available for Belgium. As in any economic model based on data from a randomized clinical trial, several assumptions had to be made when extrapolating results to routine clinical practice in Belgium.

Conclusion:

This analysis suggests that dabigatran, a novel oral anticoagulant, is a cost-effective treatment for the prevention of stroke and SE in patients with non-valvular AF in the Belgian healthcare setting.     

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

Objective:

Results of randomized clinical trials (RCT) demonstrate that novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are effective therapies for reducing the risk of stroke in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Prior medical cost avoidance studies have used warfarin event rates from RCTs, which may differ from patients receiving treatment in a real-world (RW) setting, where the quality of care may not be the same as in a RCT. The purpose of this study was to estimate the change in medical costs related to stroke and major bleeding for each NOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivoraxaban) relative to warfarin in a RW NVAF population.

Methods:

Patients (n?=?23,525) with a diagnosis of NVAF during 2007–2010 were selected from a Medco population of US health plans. Stroke and major bleeding excluding intracranial hemorrhage (MBEIH) events were identified using diagnosis codes on medical claims. RW reference event rates were calculated during periods of warfarin exposure. RW event rates for NOACs were estimated by multiplying the corresponding relative risk (RR) from the RCTs by each reference rate. Absolute risk reductions (ARR) or number of events avoided per patient year were then estimated. Changes in medical costs associated with each NOAC were calculated by applying the ARR to the 1-year cost for each event. Costs for stroke and MBEIH were obtained from the literature. Drug and international normalized ratio monitoring costs were not considered in this analysis.

Results:

Compared to RW warfarin, use of apixaban and dabigatran resulted in total (stroke plus MBEIH) medical cost reductions of $1245 and $555, respectively, during a patient year. Rivaroxaban resulted in a medical cost increase of $144.

Conclusions:

If relative risk reductions demonstrated in RCTs persist in a RW setting, apixaban would confer the greatest medical cost savings vs warfarin, resulting from significantly lower rates of both stroke and MBEIH.     

Comparison of differences in medical costs when new oral anticoagulants are used for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism vs warfarin or placebo in the US

Abstract

Objective:

Medical costs that may be avoided when any of the four new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, are used instead of warfarin for the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) were estimated and compared. Additionally, the overall differences in medical costs were estimated for NVAF and venous thromboembolism (VTE) patient populations combined.     

Estimated medical cost reductions associated with apixaban in real-world patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Abstract

Objective:

The Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial demonstrated that apixaban was effective in reducing the risk of stroke and major bleeding in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Medical cost avoidance studies for oral anticoagulants have used warfarin event rates from clinical trials, which may not reflect the real-world (RW) setting. This study aimed to estimate the difference in medical costs associated with apixaban instead of warfarin in RW NVAF patients.

Methods:

This study selected patients with NVAF diagnosis during 2007–2010 from a Medco population of US commercial and Medicare health plans. Stroke and major bleeding excluding intracranial hemorrhage (MBEIH) were identified using diagnosis codes. Pharmacy claims were used to define warfarin exposure periods. Rates of stroke and MBEIH were calculated during warfarin exposure. To estimate the absolute risk reduction (ARR) between warfarin and apixaban in RW, the relative risk reductions (RRR) from ARISTOTLE were multiplied by the event rates observed in RW during warfarin exposure. Medical cost reductions associated with apixaban were calculated by applying the ARR to the 1-year incremental cost for each event. Stroke and MBEIH costs were obtained from the literature and adjusted to 2011 levels.

Results:

During a patient year, the use of apixaban instead of warfarin resulted in medical cost reductions of $493 for stroke and $752 for MBEIH and $1245 for the combined outcome of both events. The medical costs avoided were greater as baseline stroke risk increased.

Conclusion:

If RRRs demonstrated in ARISTOTLE persist in RW, the use of apixaban will be associated with lower medical costs vs warfarin. Main limitations of this study were: identification of clinical events using administrative codes rather than confirmatory clinical data, inability to evaluate the level of international normalized ratio (INR) control, and not including INR monitoring and drug costs.     

Real-world comparison of all-cause hospitalizations,hospitalizations due to stroke and major bleeding,and costs for non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients prescribed oral anticoagulants in a US health plan

Aims: To compare the risk of all-cause hospitalization and hospitalizations due to stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding, as well as associated healthcare costs for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin.

Materials and methods: NVAF patients initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin were selected from the OptumInsight Research Database from January 1, 2013–September 30, 2015. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed between apixaban and each oral anticoagulant. Cox models were used to estimate the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding. Generalized linear and 2-part models were used to compare healthcare costs.

Results: Of the 47,634 eligible patients, 8,328 warfarin-apixaban pairs, 3,557 dabigatran-apixaban pairs, and 8,440 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were matched. Compared to apixaban, warfarin patients were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.21–1.40) as well as stroke/SE-related (HR?=?1.60; 95% CI?=?1.23–2.07) and major bleeding-related (HR?=?1.95; 95% CI?=?1.60–2.39) hospitalization; rivaroxaban patients were associated with a higher risk of all-cause (HR?=?1.15; 95% CI?=?1.07–1.24) and major bleeding-related hospitalization (HR?=?1.71; 95% CI?=?1.39–2.10); and dabigatran patients were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding hospitalization (HR?=?1.46, 95% CI?=?1.02–2.10). Warfarin patients had significantly higher major bleeding-related and total all-cause healthcare costs compared to apixaban patients. Rivaroxaban patients had significantly higher major bleeding-related costs compared to apixaban patients. No significant results were found for the remaining comparisons.

Limitations: No causal relationships can be concluded, and unobserved confounders may exist in this retrospective database analysis.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated a significantly higher risk of hospitalization (all-cause, stroke/SE, and major bleeding) associated with warfarin, a significantly higher risk of major bleeding hospitalization associated with dabigatran or rivaroxaban, and a significantly higher risk of all-cause hospitalization associated with rivaroxaban compared to apixaban. Lower major bleeding-related costs were observed for apixaban patients compared to warfarin and rivaroxaban patients.     

Major bleeding risk and healthcare economic outcomes of non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients newly-initiated with oral anticoagulant therapy in the real-world setting

Aims: This study compared the risk for major bleeding (MB) and healthcare economic outcomes of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) after initiating treatment with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin.

Methods: NVAF patients who initiated apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin were identified from the IMS Pharmetrics Plus database (January 1, 2013–September 30, 2015). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance differences in patient characteristics between study cohorts: patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, apixaban vs dabigatran, and apixaban vs warfarin. Risk of hospitalization and healthcare costs (all-cause and MB-related) were compared between matched cohorts during the follow-up.

Results: During the follow-up, risks for all-cause (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.2–1.7) and MB-related (HR?=?1.57, 95% CI?=?1.0–2.4) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with rivaroxaban vs apixaban. Adjusted total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban ($3,950 vs $4,333 per patient per month [PPPM], p?=?.002) and MB-related medical costs were not statistically significantly different ($100 vs $233 PPPM, p?=?.096). Risk for all-cause hospitalization (HR?=?1.98, 95% CI?=?1.6–2.4) was significantly greater for patients treated with dabigatran vs apixaban, although total all-cause healthcare costs were not statistically different. Risks for all-cause (HR?=?2.22, 95% CI?=?1.9–2.5) and MB-related (HR?=?2.05, 95% CI?=?1.4–3.0) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with warfarin vs apixaban. Total all-cause healthcare costs ($3,919 vs $4,177 PPPM, p?=?.025) and MB-related medical costs ($96 vs $212 PPPM, p?=?.026) were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs warfarin.

Limitations: This retrospective database analysis does not establish causation.

Conclusions: In the real-world setting, compared with rivaroxaban and warfarin, apixaban is associated with reduced risk of hospitalization and lower healthcare costs. Compared with dabigatran, apixaban is associated with lower risk of hospitalizations.     

Clinical and economic benefits of extended treatment with apixaban for the treatment and prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in Canada

Background and objective Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with long-term clinical and economic burden. Clinical guidelines generally recommend at least 3 months of anticoagulation, but, in clinical practice, concerns over bleeding risk often limit extended treatment. Apixaban was studied for extended VTE treatment in the AMPLIFY-EXT trial, demonstrating superiority to placebo in VTE reduction without increasing risk of major bleeding. This study assessed the long-term clinical and economic benefits of extending treatment with apixaban when clinical equipoise exists compared to standard of care with enoxaparin/warfarin and other novel oral anti-coagulants (NOACs) for the treatment and prevention of recurrent VTE in Canada.

Methods A Markov model was developed to follow patients with VTE over their lifetimes. Efficacy and safety for apixaban and enoxaparin/warfarin were based on AMPLIFY and AMPLIFY-EXT, while relative efficacy to other NOACs was synthesized by network meta-analysis (NMA). Dosages for NOACs and enoxaparin/warfarin were based on their respective trials and were given up to 18 months and up to 6 months, followed by no treatment, respectively. Patient quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on published studies, and costs for resource utilization were from a Ministry of Health perspective, expressed as 2014 CAD ($).

Results Extended treatment with apixaban compared to enoxaparin/warfarin resulted in fewer recurrent VTEs, VTE-related deaths, and bleeding events, but at slightly increased cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $4828 per QALY gained. Compared to other NOACs, apixaban had the fewest bleeding events, similar recurrent VTE events, and the lowest overall cost, which was driven by the strong bleeding profile. In scenario analyses of acute and lifetime treatments, apixaban was cost-effective against all strategies.

Conclusions Extended treatment with apixaban can offer substantial clinical benefits and is a cost-effective alternative to enoxaparin/warfarin and other NOACs.     

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

Abstract

Aims: This article aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban in comparison to warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), from a public healthcare payer’s perspective.

Materials and methods: Baseline event risks were obtained from the J-ROCKET AF trial and the treatment effect data were taken from a network meta-analysis. The other model inputs were extracted from the literature and official Japanese sources. The outcomes included the number of ischaemic strokes, myocardial infarctions, systemic embolisms and bleedings avoided, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The scenario analysis considered treatment effect data from the same network meta-analysis.

Results: In comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban was estimated to avoid 0.284 ischaemic strokes per patient, to increase the number of QALYs by 0.535 per patient and to decrease the total costs by ¥118,892 (€1,011.11) per patient (1 JPY = 0.00850638 EUR; XE.com, 7 October 2019). Consequently, rivaroxaban treatment was found to be dominant compared to warfarin. In the scenario analysis, the ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was ¥2,873,499 (€24,446.42) per QALY.

Limitations: The various sources of data used resulted in the heterogeneity of the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Although, rivaroxaban was cost-effective in the majority of cases.

Conclusion: Rivaroxaban is cost-effective against warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with NVAF, giving the payer WTP of 5,000,000 JPY.     

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

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

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

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

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

A review of international pharmacoeconomic models assessing the use of aspirin in primary prevention

Abstract

Purpose:

The aim of this narrative review was to summarise the cost analyses and supporting trial data for aspirin prophylaxis in primary prevention.

Methods:

A PubMed search using the term ‘aspirin and cost-effective and primary prevention’ was performed. Professional meetings (2009) were also searched for any relevant abstracts contacting the terms ‘aspirin’ and ‘cost effectiveness’. Where possible, outcomes were discussed in terms of cost implications (expressed as quality-adjusted life-year [QALY], disability-adjusted life-year or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) in relation to the annual risk of cardiovascular disease. Aspirin was included in cost-effectiveness models that determined direct cost savings.

Results:

A total of 67 papers were identified using PubMed, and 17 cost-effectiveness studies, which assessed aspirin in primary prevention (largely based on the key primary prevention studies), and two abstracts were included in the review. These analyses showed that low-dose aspirin was cost effective in a variety of scenarios. In the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and Japan, the mean 10-year direct cost saving (including follow-up costs and aspirin costs) per patient was €201, €281, €797, €427 and €889 with aspirin use in patients with an annual coronary heart disease risk of 1.5%. Cost-effectiveness analyses were affected by age, risk level for stroke and myocardial infarction (MI), risk of bleeds and adherence to aspirin. Underutilisation is a major limiting factor, as the appropriate use of aspirin in an eligible population (n?=?301,658) based on the NHANES database would prevent 1273 MIs, 2184 angina episodes and 565 ischaemic strokes in patients without previous events; this would result in a direct cost saving of $79.6?million (€54.7?million; 2010 values), which includes aspirin costs.

Conclusions:

Most analyses in primary prevention have shown that low-dose aspirin is a cost-effective option, and is likely to meet the willingness of a healthcare system to pay for any additional QALY gained in the majority of healthcare systems.     

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

Objective:

This study evaluated differences in medical costs associated with clinical end-points from randomized clinical trials that compared the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, to standard therapy for treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE).

Research design and methods:

Event rates of efficacy and safety end-points from the clinical trials (RE-COVER, RE-COVER II, EINSTEIN-Pooled, AMPLIFY, Hokusai-VTE trial) were obtained from published literature. Incremental annual medical costs among patients with clinical events from a US payer perspective were obtained from the literature or healthcare claims databases and inflation adjusted to 2013 costs. Differences in total medical costs associated with clinical end-points for the NOACs vs standard therapy were then estimated. One-way and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were carried out.

Results:

A lower rate of major bleedings was associated with use of any of the NOACs vs standard therapy. Except for dabigatran, use of NOACs was also associated with a lower rate of recurrent VTE/death. As a result of the reduction in clinical event rates, the overall medical cost differences were ?$146, ?$482, ?$918, and ?$344 for VTE patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, respectively, vs patients treated with standard therapy.

Conclusions:

When any of the four NOACs are used instead of standard therapy for acute VTE, treatment medical costs are reduced. Apixaban is associated with the greatest reduction in medical costs, which is driven by medical cost reductions associated with both efficacy and safety end-points. Further evaluation may be needed to validate these results in the real-world setting.     

Comparison of hospital length of stay and hospitalization costs among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with apixaban or warfarin: An early view

Objective: To quantify and compare hospital length of stay (LOS) and costs between hospitalized non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients treated with either apixaban or warfarin via a large claims database.

Methods: Adult patients hospitalized with AF were selected from the Premier Perspective Claims Database (01JAN2013-31MARCH2014). Patients with evidence of valvular heart disease, valve replacement procedures, or pregnancy during the index hospitalization were excluded. Patients treated with apixaban or warfarin during hospitalization were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to control for baseline imbalances between patients treated with apixaban or warfarin. Primary outcomes were hospital LOS (days), post-medication administration LOS, and index hospitalization costs, and were compared using paired t-tests in the matched sample.

Results: Before PSM, 2894 apixaban and 124,174 warfarin patients were identified. Patients treated with warfarin were older and sicker compared to those treated with apixaban. After applying PSM, a total of 2886 patients were included in each cohort, and baseline characteristics were balanced. The mean (standard deviation [SD] and median) hospital LOS was significantly (p?=?0.002) shorter for patients treated with apixaban for 5.1 days (5.7 and 3) compared to warfarin for 5.5 days (4.8 and 4). The trend appeared consistent in the hospital LOS from point of apixaban or warfarin administration to discharge (4.5 vs 4.7 days, p?=?0.051). Patients administered apixaban incurred significantly lower hospitalization costs compared to those administered warfarin ($11,262 vs $12,883; p?<?0.001).

Conclusions: Among NVAF patients, apixaban treatment was associated with significantly shorter hospital LOS and lower costs when compared to warfarin treatment.     

Healthcare costs of stroke and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

Objective: To assess long-term healthcare costs related to ischemic stroke and systemic embolism (stroke/SE) and major bleeding (MB) events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs).

Materials and methods: Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart database from 1/2009–12/2016 was analyzed. Adult patients with ≥1 stroke/SE hospitalization (index date) were matched 1:1 to patients without stroke/SE (random index date), based on propensity scores. Patients with an MB event were matched to patients without MB. All patients had an NOAC dispensing overlapping index date, ≥12?months of eligibility pre-index date, and ≥1 NVAF diagnosis. The observation period spanned from the index date until the earliest date of death, switch to warfarin, end of insurance coverage, or end of data availability. Mean costs were evaluated: (1) per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and (2) at 1, 2, 3, and 4?years using Lin's method.

Results: The cost differences were, respectively, $48,807 and $28,298 PPPY for NOAC users with stroke/SE (n?=?1,340) and those with MB (n?=?3,774) events compared to controls. Cost differences of patients with vs without stroke/SE were $49,876, $51,627, $57,822, and $60,691 at 1, 2, 3, and 4?years post-index, respectively (p?p?Limitations: Limitations include unobserved confounders, coding and/or billing inaccuracies, limited sample sizes over longer follow-up, and the under-reporting of mortality for deaths occurring after 2011.

Conclusions: The incremental healthcare costs incurred by patients with vs without stroke/SE was nearly twice as high as those of patients with vs without MB. Moreover, each additional year up to 4?years after the first event was associated with an incremental cost for patients with a stroke/SE or MB event compared to those without an event.     

Number needed to treat based on real-world evidence for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Aims: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This paper aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of NOACs when compared to VKAs by calculating the number needed to treat (NNT) at 2 years using incidence rates and hazard ratios (HRs) derived from a meta-analysis of studies conducted in real-world settings.

Materials and methods: HRs were sourced from a published systematic literature review and a meta-analysis of real-world evidence on the use of NOACs vs VKAs. Rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban vs VKAs were investigated. The efficacy outcomes included: a composite of ischaemic stroke and systemic embolism (IS/SE), ischaemic stroke (IS), and all-cause mortality. The safety analysis assessed major bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH).

Results: Superiority of NOACs vs VKAs was observed in 10/15 comparisons. Treating patients with rivaroxaban and dabigatran was associated with a reduced risk of IS and all-cause mortality compared to VKAs, with one death prevented every 22 and 32 patients, respectively, and one IS prevented every 206 and 166 patients, respectively. Rivaroxaban was significantly associated with a reduced risk of IS/SE compared to VKA (NNT: 107). No significant differences were observed between apixaban and VKAs. Dabigatran and apixaban were associated with a reduced risk of major bleeding compared to VKA (NNT: 59 and 38, respectively). No significant difference was observed between rivaroxaban and VKAs regarding major bleeding. Rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban were significantly associated with a reduced risk of ICH (NNT: 205, 115, and 108, respectively).

Limitations: Heterogeneity in definitions of major bleeding across studies.

Conclusions: The NNT calculation, when approached and interpreted properly, is a practical measure of the effectiveness of a treatment. The calculation based on HRs showed that NOACs are safe and effective alternatives to VKAs in real life.     

Is dabigatran considered a cost-effective alternative to warfarin treatment: a review of current economic evaluations worldwide

Abstract

Objective:

Dabigatran was the first of a new generation of anticoagulation drugs for the indication of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) to be approved. Evidence show that dabigatran 150?mg twice daily significantly reduces the risk of stroke and systemic embolism (RR?=?0.65; p?<?0.001) and shows a comparable rate of major bleedings (RR?=?0.93; p?=?0.32), whereas dabigatran 110?mg twice daily was associated with a comparable rate of stroke and systemic embolism (RR?=?0.90; p?=?0.30) and a significantly lower rate of major bleedings compared to warfarin treatment (RR?=?0.80; p?=?0.003). The purpose is to review current economic evaluations of these alternatives for healthcare professionals to include these findings in their decision-making.

Methods:

A systematic literature search identified 43 economic evaluations, of which 10 were included and evaluated according to the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC-list) and the Oxford model.

Results:

Six economic evaluations concluded that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to warfarin. One evaluation concluded the same except when quality in warfarin treatment was excellent, with a mean time in therapeutic range (TTR)?>?73%. Three evaluations concluded that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to warfarin in patient sub-groups; TTR?≤?64%, congestive heart failure, hypertension, age?≥?75, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (CHADS2 score) ≥3, or a CHADS2 score?=?2 unless international normalized ratio (INR) control was excellent, and with high risk of stroke or in a low-quality warfarin treatment. Dabigatran 110?mg twice daily was in general dominated by dabigatran 150?mg twice daily.

Limitations:

The evaluations were not fully homogeneous, as some did not include loss of productivity, costs of dyspepsia, and annual costs of dabigatran patient management.

Conclusions:

In the majority of the economic evaluations, dabigatran is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin treatment. In some evaluations dabigatran is only cost-effective in sub-groups, such as patients with a low TTR-value in warfarin treatment and a CHADS2 score ≥2.     

Cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid in the management of skeletal metastases in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients in France,Germany, Portugal,and the Netherlands

Abstract

Objective:

Zoledronic acid (ZOL) reduces the risk of skeletal related events (SREs) in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients with bone metastases. This study assessed the cost effectiveness of ZOL for SRE management in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.

Methods:

This analysis was based on the results of a randomized phase III clinical trial wherein HRPC patients received up to 15 months of ZOL (n?=?214) or placebo (n?=?208). Clinical inputs were obtained from the trial. Costs were estimated using hospital tariffs, published, and internet sources. Quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were estimated from a separate analysis of EQ-5D scores reported in the trial. Uncertainty surrounding outcomes was addressed via univariate sensitivity analyses.

Results:

ZOL patients experienced an estimated 0.759 fewer SREs and gained an estimated 0.03566 QALYs versus placebo patients. ZOL was associated with reduced SRE-related costs [net costs] (?€2396 [€1284] in France, ?€2606 [€841] in Germany, ?€3326 [€309] in Portugal and ?€3617 [€87] in the Netherlands). Costs per QALY ranged from €2430 (Netherlands) to €36,007 (France).

Conclusions:

This analysis is subject to the limitations of most cost-effectiveness analyses: it combines data from multiple sources. Nevertheless, the results strongly suggest that ZOL is cost effective versus placebo in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.     

Prasugrel vs clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany,Sweden, the Netherlands,and Turkey

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of 12-months treatment with prasugrel vs clopidogrel from four European healthcare systems’ perspectives (Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey).

Methods:

In the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial, patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were treated with prasugrel or clopidogrel. Prasugrel reduced the composite end-point (cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke), but increased TIMI major bleeding. A Markov model was constructed to facilitate a lifetime horizon for the analysis. A series of risk equations constructed using individual patient data from TRITON-TIMI 38 was used to estimate risks of clinical events. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived by weighting survival time by estimates of health-related quality-of-life. Incremental cost-effectiveness is presented based on differences in treatments’ mean costs and QALYs for the licensed population in TRITON-TIMI 38, and the sub-groups of UA-NSTEMI, STEMI, diabetes, and the ‘core clinical cohort’ (<75 years, ≥60?kg, no history of stroke or TIA).

Results:

Mean cost of study drug was €364 (Turkey) to €818 (Germany) higher for prasugrel vs clopidogrel. Rehospitalization costs at 12 months were lower for prasugrel due to reduced rates of revascularization, although hospitalization costs beyond 12 months were higher due to longer life expectancy associated with lower rates of non-fatal MI in the prasugrel group. The incremental cost per QALY saved with prasugrel in the licensed population ranged from €6520 (for Sweden) to €14,350 for (Germany). Prasugrel’s cost per QALY was more favourable still in the STEMI and diabetes sub-groups of the licensed population.

Limitations:

Probabilistic analyses of the whole trial population is impractical due to the number of individual patient profiles over which population level results are calculated.

Conclusion:

Among patients undergoing PCI for ACS, treatment with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel resulted in favourable cost-effectiveness profiles from these healthcare systems’ perspectives.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of disease modifiying drugs (interferons and glatiramer acetate) as first line treatments in remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis patients

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to assess cost-effectiveness of the different Disease Modifying Drugs (DMD) used as first-line treatments (interferons IM IFNβ-1a, SC IFNβ-1a, SC IFNβ-1b, and glatiramer acetate, GA) in Remitting-Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) in Spain.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed to simulate the progression of a cohort of patients with RRMS, during a period of 10 years. Seven health states, defined by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), were considered in the model. Patients with an EDSS score less than 6.0 were assumed to be treated with one of the DMD. In addition, all patients were assumed to receive symptomatic treatment. The monthly transition probabilities of the model were obtained from the literature. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective, in which both direct and indirect (losses in productivity) healthcare costs (€, 2010) were included. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and efficacy results.

Results:

GA was the less costly strategy (€322,510), followed by IM IFNβ-1a (€329,595), SC IFNβ-1b (€ 333,925), and SC IFNβ-1a (€348,208). IM IFNβ-1a has shown the best efficacy results, with 4.176 quality-adjusted life years (QALY), followed by SC IFNβ-1a (4.158 QALY), SC IFNβ-1b (4.157 QALY), and GA (4.117 QALY). Incremental costs per QALY gained with IM IFNβ-1a were €?1,005,194/QALY, €?223,397/QALY, and €117,914/QALY in comparison to SC IFNβ-1a, SC IFNβ-1b, and GA, respectively.

Conclusions:

First-line treatment with GA is the less costly strategy for the treatment of patients with RRMS. Treatment with IM IFNβ-1a is a dominant strategy (lower cost and higher QALY) compared with SC IFNβ-1a and SC IFNβ-1b. However, IM IFNβ-1a is not a cost-effective strategy vs GA, because incremental cost per QALY gained with IM IFNβ-1a exceeds the €30,000 per QALY threshold commonly used in Spain.

Limitations:

The highly-restrictive inclusion criteria of clinical trials limits generalization of the results on efficacy to all patients with multiple sclerosis. Availability of data for head-to-head comparisons is associated with the use of information from clinical trials.