Cost and outcomes associated with rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin for the prevention of postsurgical venous thromboembolism from a US payer’s perspective

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this analysis was the evaluation of the outcomes and costs associated with rivaroxaban and enoxaparin for the prevention of postsurgical venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) from the US payer perspective.

Methods:

VTE event rates have been reported in three Phase III clinical trials that compared rivaroxaban and enoxaparin for VTE prevention after orthopedic surgery during the prophylaxis (≤35 days for THR patients and 10–14 days for TKR patients) and post-prophylaxis periods (≤90 days following surgery). These data were used in this decision-analytic model to estimate and compare health outcomes and costs associated with rivaroxaban and enoxaparin. The base-case analysis considered the number and costs of symptomatic VTE events during the prophylaxis period only. A 90-day horizon was considered in the sensitivity analysis.

Results:

Following THR, when extended durations of prophylaxis (35 days) were compared, rivaroxaban was associated with lower costs than enoxaparin, with total saving costs of $695/patient. When an extended duration of rivaroxaban prophylaxis (35 days) was compared with a short duration (10–14 days) of enoxaparin prophylaxis, rivaroxaban was estimated to prevent 9.9 additional symptomatic VTE events per 1000 patients, while saving $244/patient (rate/1000 patients). In the TKR population, short duration of rivaroxaban prophylaxis was estimated to prevent 13.1 additional symptomatic VTE events per 1000 patients. It was also less costly than short duration enoxaparin prophylaxis, with a saving of $411/patient (rate/1000 patients).

Limitations:

Only statistically significant differences were captured in the base-case economic analysis, and, therefore, differences in pulmonary embolism (PE) and bleeding events were not captured.

Conclusions:

In this model, rivaroxaban reduced total treatment payer costs vs enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE in THR or TKR patients.     

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban in the prevention of venous thromboembolism: A Canadian analysis using the Ontario Ministry of Health Perspective

Abstract

Objectives:

A cost-effectiveness model for rivaroxaban evaluated the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with rivaroxaban (a once-daily, orally administered Factor Xa inhibitor) vs enoxaparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). This Canadian analysis was conducted using the Ontario Ministry of Health perspective over a 5-year time horizon. The model combined clinical data and builds upon existing economic models.

Methods:

The model included both acute VTE (represented as a decision tree) and long-term complications (represented as a Markov process with 1-year cycles) phases. The model allowed VTE event rates, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs to be estimated over a 5-year time horizon, based on current approved practice patterns in Canada. A number of one-way sensitivity analyses were performed on the baseline assumptions, including a comparison of rivaroxaban with dalteparin, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to address any uncertainty concerning model inputs.

Results:

When comparing equal durations of therapy, rivaroxaban dominated enoxaparin in the prevention of VTE events in patients undergoing THR and TKR, providing more benefit at a lower cost. Rivaroxaban was cost-effective when comparing 35 days’ prophylaxis with 14 days’ prophylaxis with enoxaparin following THR. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results of the economic analysis were robust to variations in key inputs. Rivaroxaban remained dominant during one-way sensitivity analyses comparing rivaroxaban with dalteparin after THR or TKR.

Limitations:

Although clinical trial data were used in the prophylaxis module, assumptions and values used in the post-prophylaxis and long-term complication (LTC) modules were based on several different literature sources; it was not always possible to source Canadian data.

Conclusions:

This economic analysis suggests that the use of rivaroxaban for the prophylaxis of VTE after THR or TKR in Canada was cost-effective.     

Risks and cost burden of venous thromboembolism and bleeding for patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement in a managed-care population

Abstract

Background:

Total hip and total knee replacement (THR/TKR) patients are at increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). VTE prevention using anticoagulation therapy increases the risk of bleeding. Therefore, any assessment of the cost of VTE and its prevention should also take into consideration risks and costs of bleeding.

Objective:

To assess the risks of developing VTE and bleeding in patients after THR or TKR given real-world use of thromboprophylaxis, and to quantify the incremental cost associated with each.

Methods:

Analyses of insurance healthcare claims from the Ingenix IMPACT National Managed Care Database^TM from January 2004 to December 2008 were conducted. Subjects were ≥18 years and had ≥1 procedure code for THR or TKR. Patients had to have ≥180 days of observation prior to surgery and were observed for ≤3 months after THR or TKR. VTE was defined as ≥1 diagnosis code for deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Bleeding events were classified as major or non-major. Risks of VTE or bleeding events were calculated as number of patients with an event divided by number of patients with the procedure. Incremental all-cause healthcare costs associated with VTE or bleeding were calculated as the difference between cohorts of patients without VTE or bleeding matched 1:1 to patients with VTE or bleeding.

Results:

Of 119,729 patients (43,670 THR and 76,059 TKR), 7974 had a VTE event and 4849 had a bleeding event (2216 major bleeding [a subset of ‘any bleeding’]). The risks of VTE, any bleeding, and major bleeding were 6.7, 4.0, and 1.9 events, respectively, per 100 patients. Up to 3 months after THR/TKR, mean incremental all-cause healthcare costs per patient per month associated with VTE, bleeding, and major bleeding were $2729, $2696, and $4304, respectively. Total monthly costs versus matched controls over 3 months were: VTE: $12,333 vs. $9604; any bleeding: $12,481 vs. $9785; major bleeding: $14,015 vs. $9710; p?<?0.001 for all.

Limitations:

Key limitations included potential inaccuracies or omissions in procedures, diagnoses, or costs of claims data; lack of information on the amount of blood transfused or decreases in the hemoglobin level to evaluate the severity of a bleeding event; and potential biases due to the observational design of the study.

Conclusion:

From the managed-care population perspective, in THR/TKR patients the greater incidence of VTE compared to any bleeding and major bleeding translated into a higher cumulative cost burden.     

Economic evaluation of dabigatran etexilate for the primary prevention of venous tromboembolic events following major orthopedic surgery in the Netherlands

Abstract

Objectives:

Dabigatran etexilate is a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who have elective surgery for total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR). Among the advantages of dabigatran etexilate over subcutaneous prophylaxis with Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) are reduced resource uses for (i) teaching patients to self-inject; (ii) home-care visits for subcutaneous administration; and (iii) absence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Based on the demonstrated non-inferiority, the aim of this study was to conduct a cost-minimization analysis of oral dabigatran etexilate vs subcutaneous low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and fondaparinux from the Dutch healthcare perspective.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to measure resource use associated with subcutaneous prophylaxis. Results of this study were used in the model to elucidate specific advantages of dabigatran etexilate, next to reduced needs for self-inject teaching and lack of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia. Drug and other resource utilization data were combined with local unit costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty around relevant parameters included.

Results:

Home-care visits for subcutaneous administration problems were needed in 9.9% (95% CI?=?6.4–13.4) and 9.6% (95% CI?=?5.8–13.4) of THR and TKR patients, respectively. Based on costs for 1000 patients treated with dabigatran etexilate vs LMWHs, per patient cost-savings with dabigatran etexilate were estimated at €30.68 (95% CI?=?2.01–65.52) and €23.19 (95% CI?=?0.69–48.48) for THR and TKR, respectively. The probability that dabigatran etexilate would be cost-saving was estimated at 98.3% and 97.9% for THR and TKR, respectively. These cost-savings were even higher when including fondaparinux in the analysis, with per patient cost-savings of €69.87 (43.42–106.10) and €18.33 (1.63–41.26) for THR and TKR, respectively. Separate calculations for dabigatran etexilate vs nadroparin and dalteparin in THR resulted in probabilities of achieving cost-savings with dabigatran etexilate of 36.2% and 100%, respectively. For TKR these probabilities were estimated at 54.3% and 100%, respectively.

Conclusions:

Thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran etexilate is cost-saving in patients undergoing THR and TKR from the Dutch healthcare perspective, compared to subcutaneous LMWHs.     

Length of stay and economic consequences with rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin/vitamin K antagonist in patients with DVT and PE: findings from the North American EINSTEIN clinical trial program

Objective:

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) (deep vein thrombosis [DVT] and pulmonary embolism [(PE]) represents a substantial economic burden to the healthcare system. Using data from the randomized EINSTEIN DVT and PE trials, this North American sub-group analysis investigated the potential of rivaroxaban to reduce the length of initial hospitalization in patients with acute symptomatic DVT or PE.

Methods:

A post-hoc analysis of hospitalization and length-of-stay (LOS) data was conducted in the North American sub-set of patients from the randomized, open-label EINSTEIN trial program. Patients received either rivaroxaban (15?mg twice daily for 3 weeks followed by 20?mg once daily; n?=?405) or dose-adjusted subcutaneous enoxaparin overlapping with (guideline-recommended ‘bridging’ therapy) and followed by a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) (international normalized ratio?=?2.0–3.0; n?=?401). The open-label study design allowed for the comparison of LOS between treatment arms under conditions reflecting normal clinical practice. LOS was evaluated using investigator records of dates of admission and discharge. Analyses were carried out in the intention-to-treat population using parametric tests. Costs were applied to the LOS based on weighted mean cost per day for DVT and PE diagnoses obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project dataset.

Results:

Of 382 patients hospitalized, 321 (84%), had acute symptomatic PE; few DVT patients required hospitalization. Similar rates of VTE patients were hospitalized in the rivaroxaban and enoxaparin/VKA treatment groups, 189/405 (47%) and 193/401 (48%), respectively. In hospitalized VTE patients, rivaroxaban treatment produced a 1.6-day mean reduction in LOS (median?=?1 day) compared with enoxaparin/VKA (mean?=?4.5 vs 6.1; median?=?3 vs 4), translating to total costs that were $3419 lower in rivaroxaban-treated patients.

Conclusion:

In hospitalized North American patients with VTE, treatment with rivaroxaban produced a statistically significant reduction in LOS. When treating DVT and PE patients, clinicians should consider newer anti-coagulants with less complex treatment regimens.     

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

Background:

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprised of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is commonly treated with a low-molecular-weight heparin such as enoxaparin plus a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to prevent recurrence. Administration of enoxaparin?+?VKA is hampered by complexities of laboratory monitoring and frequent dose adjustments. Rivaroxaban, an orally administered anticoagulant, has been compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA in the EINSTEIN trials. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA as anticoagulation treatment for acute, symptomatic, objectively-confirmed DVT or PE.

Methods:

A Markov model was built to evaluate the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios associated with rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin?+?VKA in adult patients treated for acute DVT or PE. All patients entered the model in the ‘on-treatment’ state upon commencement of oral rivaroxaban or enoxaparin?+?VKA for 3, 6, or 12 months. Transition probabilities were obtained from the EINSTEIN trials during treatment and published literature after treatment. A 3-month cycle length, US payer perspective ($2012), 5-year time horizon and a 3% annual discount rate were used.

Results:

Treatment with rivaroxaban cost $2,448 per-patient less and was associated with 0.0058 more QALYs compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA, making it a dominant economic strategy. Upon one-way sensitivity analysis, the model’s results were sensitive to the reduction in index VTE hospitalization length-of-stay associated with rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed rivaroxaban to be cost-effective compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA approximately 76% of the time.

Limitations:

The model did not account for the benefits associated with an oral and minimally invasive administration of rivaroxaban. ‘Real-world’ applicability is limited because data from the EINSTEIN trials were used in the model. Also, resource utilization and costs were based on the US healthcare system.

Conclusion:

Rivaroxaban is a cost-effective option for anticoagulation treatment of acute VTE patients.     

Economic evaluation of extended and conventional prophylaxis with enoxaparin against venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing surgery for abdominal cancer

Summary

This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of extended enoxaparin prophylaxis (EEP) and conventional enoxaparin prophylaxis (CEP) compared with conventional unfractionated heparin prophylaxis (CUP) against venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing surgery for abdominal cancer.

A decision tree model compared CEP (enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 8±2 days), EEP (CEP plus 21 days outpatient prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily), and CUP (unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5,000 IU three times daily for 8±2 days). The primary effectiveness measure was symptomatic VTE. Secondary effectiveness measures included life-years gained.

CEP was associated with reduced costs and similar rates of symptomatic VTE compared with UFH. The cost per life year gained with EEP was estimated to be £15,200 compared with UFH and £22,700 compared with CEP.

Extended prophylaxis reduces symptomatic VTE events but increases cost. In patients undergoing surgery for abdominal malignancy, conventional prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily was found to be at least as effective as UFH, and cost saving at current prices.     

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

Abstract

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in France: comparative cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants (apixaban,dabigatran, and rivaroxaban), warfarin,and aspirin

Objectives:

To conduct an economic evaluation of the currently prescribed treatments for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) including warfarin, aspirin, and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) from a French payer perspective.

Methods:

A previously published Markov model was adapted in accordance to the new French guidelines of the Commission for Economic Evaluation and Public Health (CEESP), to adopt the recommended efficiency frontier approach. A cohort of patients with NVAF eligible for stroke preventive treatment was simulated over lifetime. Clinical events modeled included strokes, systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and myocardial infarction. Efficacy and bleeding data for warfarin, apixaban, and aspirin were obtained from ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials, whilst efficacy data for other NOACs were from published indirect comparisons. Acute medical costs were obtained from a dedicated analysis of the French national hospitalization database (PMSI). Long-term medical costs and utility data were derived from the literature. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model projections.

Results:

Warfarin and apixaban were the two optimal treatment choices, as the other five treatment strategies including aspirin, dabigatran 110?mg, dabigatran in sequential dosages, dabigatran 150?mg, and rivaroxaban were strictly dominated on the efficiency frontier. Further, apixaban was a cost-effective alternative vs warfarin with an incremental cost of €2314 and an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.189, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12,227/QALY.

Conclusions:

Apixaban may be the most economically efficient alternative to warfarin in NVAF patients eligible for stroke prevention in France. All other strategies were dominated, yielding apixaban as a less costly yet more effective treatment alternative. As formally requested by the CEESP, these results need to be verified in a French clinical setting using stroke reduction and bleeding safety observed in real-life patient cohorts using these anticoagulants.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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

Abstract

Objective: The standard of care for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but oral anticoagulants are also widely prescribed. This study compared VTE-related healthcare resource utilization and costs of cancer patients treated with anticoagulants.

Methods: Claims data from Humana Database (January 1, 2013–May 31, 2015) were analyzed. Based on the first anticoagulant received, patients were classified into LMWH, warfarin, or rivaroxaban cohorts. Characteristics were evaluated during the 6 months pre-index date (i.e. the first VTE); VTE-related resource utilization and costs were evaluated during follow-up. Cohorts were compared using rate ratios, and p-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Healthcare costs were evaluated per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and compared using mean cost differences.

Results: A total of 2,428 patients (LMWH: n?=?660; warfarin: n?=?1,061; rivaroxaban: n?=?707) were included. Compared to patients treated with LMWH, patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly fewer VTE-related hospitalizations, hospitalization days, and emergency room and outpatient visits, resulting in an increase of $12,000 VTE-related healthcare costs PPPY with LMWH vs rivaroxaban. Patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly lower VTE-related resource utilization compared to patients treated with warfarin; however, VTE-related costs were similar between cohorts. The higher drug costs ($1,519) were offset by significantly lower outpatient (?$1,039) and hospitalization costs (?$522) in rivaroxaban relative to the warfarin cohort.

Conclusions: Healthcare resource use and costs associated with VTE treatment in cancer patients are highest with LMWH relative to warfarin and rivaroxaban.     

In-hospital risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding and associated costs for patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty

Abstract

Objective:

Benefits of anti-coagulation for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) may be offset by increased risk of bleeding. The aim was to assess in-hospital risk of VTE and bleeding after THA/TKA and quantify any increased costs.

Methods:

Healthcare claims from the Premier Perspective^TM Comparative Hospital Database (January 2000–September 2008) were selected for subjects ≥18 years with ≥1 diagnosis code for THA/TKA. VTE was defined as ≥1 code for deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Bleeding was classified as major/non-major. Incremental in-hospital costs associated with VTE and bleeding were calculated as cost differences between inpatients with VTE or bleeding matched 1:1 with inpatients without VTE or bleeding.

Results:

A total of 820,197 inpatient stays were identified: 8042 had a VTE event and 7401 a bleeding event (2740 major bleeding). The risks of VTE, any bleeding, and major bleeding were 0.98, 0.90, and 0.33/100 inpatient stays, respectively. Mean incremental in-hospital costs per inpatient were $2663 for VTE, $2028 for bleeding, and $3198 for major bleeding.

Limitations:

These included possible inaccuracies or omissions in procedures, diagnoses, or costs of claims data; no information on the amount of blood transfused or decreases in the hemoglobin level to evaluate bleeding event severity; and potential biases due to the observational design of the study.

Conclusions:

In-hospital risk and incremental all-cause costs with THA/TKA were higher for VTE than for bleeding. Despite higher costs, major bleeding occurred less frequently than VTE, suggesting a favorable benefit/risk profile for VTE prophylaxis in THA/TKA.     

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.