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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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

Background:

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

Limitations were inherent to administrative-claims data, completeness of baseline characteristics, adjustments restricted to observational factors, and lastly the sample size of the rivaroxaban cohort.

Conclusion:

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

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

An indirect comparison,via enoxaparin,of rivaroxaban with dabigatran in the prevention of venous thromboembolism after hip or knee replacement

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the efficacy, in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and safety, of rivaroxaban and dabigatran relative to the common comparator enoxaparin.

Methods:

Two randomized clinical trials of dabigatran, one after total hip replacement (THR), RE-NOVATE, and one after total knee replacement (TKR), RE-MODEL, were identified as using the same enoxaparin regimen (40?mg once daily given the evening before surgery) and being of comparable duration to two rivaroxaban trials, RECORD1 and RECORD3. Indirect comparisons were performed on both efficacy and safety endpoints. To enable comparisons, symptomatic VTE results were based on the total study duration period, i.e. including the follow-up period. Major bleeding included surgical-site bleeding events.

Results:

After THR, rivaroxaban 10?mg once daily significantly reduced total VTE and symptomatic VTE relative to dabigatran 220?mg once daily (relative risk 0.34 and 0.19, respectively). After TKR, rivaroxaban significantly reduced total VTE versus dabigatran (relative risk 0.53); symptomatic VTE was not different between dabigatran and rivaroxaban. There was no significant difference in the rates of major bleeding for patients receiving rivaroxaban or dabigatran.

Conclusions:

Based on the indirect comparisons, rivaroxaban was estimated to be more efficacious than dabigatran in the prevention of total VTE after THR and TKR. Our analysis relied upon published data for dabigatran and did not have the advantages of more detailed comparative data obtained directly from a randomized trial, as was the case with rivaroxaban. Further comparative research may be of value, but until available our conclusions represent the best available evidence.     

Predictors for total hospital and cardiology cost claims among patients with atrial fibrillation initiating dabigatran or acenocoumarol in The Netherlands

Aims: The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has increased over the past years due to aging of the population, and healthcare costs associated with AF reflect a significant financial burden. The aim of this study was to explore predictors for the real-world AF-related in-hospital costs in patients that recently initiated anticoagulation with acenocoumarol or dabigatran.

Methods: Predictors for claimed total hospital care costs and cardiology costs in AF patients were explored by using hospital financial claims data from propensity score matched patient groups in a large Dutch community hospital. This study analyzed the total dataset (n?=?766) and carried out a secondary analysis for all matched pairs of anticoagulation naïve AF patients (n?=?590) by ordinal regression.

Results: Dabigatran was a predictor for significantly lower cardiology and total hospital care costs (Odds Ratio [OR]?=?0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI)?=?0.33–0.57; and OR?=?0.60, 95% CI?=?0.46–0.79, respectively). Female gender was a predictor for lower total hospital care costs. Predictors for an increase in total hospital care costs were the occurrence of stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, and minor bleeding. The costs predictors were comparable when limiting the analysis to patients that were anticoagulation naïve. Age and CHA₂DS₂-VASc were not predictors for either cardiology or total hospital care costs in both analyses.

Conclusion: Dabigatran treatment was as a predictor for lower cardiology costs and lower total hospital care costs in AF patients that initiated oral anticoagulation.     

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.     

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.     

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.