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.     

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.     

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.     

Systematic literature review of economics analysis on treatment of mild-to-moderate bleeds with aPCC versus rFVIIa

Abstract

Objective:

Two bypassing agents, activated prothrombin complex concentrates (aPCC) and recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa), have shown similar efficacy and safety in the treatment of bleeding episodes in patients with hemophilia and inhibitors as demonstrated through the only two head-to-head clinical trials. Given the economic burden of bypassing treatment, it is crucial to have a valid estimate of cost effectiveness of alternative treatments. The aims of this study were to conduct a systematic review of published pharmacoeconomic literature on the cost-effectiveness of aPCC versus rFVIIa to treat mild-to-moderate bleeds in patients with hemophilia and inhibitors, with a focus on the model assumptions and their impact on results.

Methods:

An English language search was conducted for original economic studies comparing aPCC and rFVIIa published between 1995 and July 2010. Detailed information on sponsorship, study design, assumptions and their impact on results was collected for each study.

Results:

A total of 11 economic studies were included in the review. Nine studies assessed cost per bleeding episode (eight cost-minimization analysis (CMA) and one cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)). Two studies were from longitudinal perspective. Studies on cost per bleeding episode were evaluated and systematically compared. All studies were from a third-party payer perspective. Most analyses, except one study, used a similar decision-tree model. The assumptions for all CMA studies were obtained from non-comparable single-armed trials or observational data. All studies were sponsored by the two competing manufacturers of rFVIIa (seven studies) and aPCC (two studies). The crucial parameter assumptions on treatment efficacy and dosing drove their reported findings. Eight of these nine studies favored their sponsor’s product.

Conclusion:

With one exception, published economic studies tend to favor their sponsor’s product primarily by assuming a higher efficacy and lower dosing for the sponsored agent, even though the two existing head-to-head clinical studies do not support superior efficacy for either product.     

Irritable bowel syndrome with constipation: a European-focused systematic literature review of disease burden

Abstract

Objective:

To conduct a systematic literature review to assess burden of disease and unmet medical needs in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with constipation (IBS-C), with a focus on five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK).

Methods:

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and grey literature searches were carried out using terms for IBS and constipation, to identify studies reporting epidemiological, clinical, humanistic, or economic outcomes for IBS-C, published between 2000 and 2010.

Results:

Searches identified 885 unique abstracts and 33 supplementary articles, of which 100 publications and six grey literature sources met the inclusion criteria. Among patients with IBS, the prevalence estimates of IBS-C ranged from 1 to 44%. Co-morbid conditions, such as personality traits, psychological distress, and stress, were common. Patients with IBS-C had lower health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) compared with the general population, and clinical trials suggested that effectively treating IBS-C improves HRQoL. The European societal cost of IBS-C is largely unknown, as no IBS-C-specific European cost-of-illness studies were identified. Two cost analyses demonstrated the substantial societal impact of IBS-C, including reduced productivity at work and work absenteeism. Guidelines offered similar recommendations for the diagnosis and management of IBS; however, recommendations specifically for IBS-C varied by country. Current IBS-C treatment options have limited efficacy and the risk:benefit profile of early 5-HT₄ agonists restricts clinical use.

Conclusions:

This systematic review indicates a clear need for European-focused IBS-C burden-of-disease and cost-of-illness studies to address identified evidence gaps. There is a need for new therapies for IBS-C that are effective, well tolerated, and have a positive impact on HRQoL.     

Economic evaluations of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine: a systematic review

Aims: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the use of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) conjugate vaccines, but China and Thailand have not used Hib vaccination in their national immunization programs. This systematic review aimed to update published economic evaluations of Hib vaccinations and to determine factors that potentially affected their cost-effectiveness.

Methods: Searches were performed from the inception until December 2015 using 13 databases: CAB direct; CEA registry; EconLit; EMBASE; E-library; NHSEED; PAHO; POPLINE; PubMed; Redalyc project; RePEc; SciELO; and WHOLIS. Reference lists of relevant studies and grey literature were also searched. Full economic evaluations of Hib vaccination with results of costs and outcomes were included. The WHO checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Data from eligible studies were extracted using a standardized data collection form.

Results: Out of 830 articles, 27 were included. Almost half of the studies (12/27) were conducted in high-income countries. Twelve studies (12/27) investigated the Hib vaccine as an addition to the existing vaccination program. Most studies (17/27) examined a 3-dose schedule of Hib vaccine. Nineteen studies (19/27) reported the model used, where all were decision tree models. Most of the studies (23/27) demonstrated an economic value of Hib vaccination programs, key influential parameters being incidence rates of Hib disease and vaccine price.

Conclusions: Hib vaccination programs are mostly found to be cost-effective across geographic regions and country income levels, and Hib vaccination is recommended for inclusion into all national immunization programs. The findings are expected to support policy-makers for making decisions on allocating limited resources of the Hib vaccination program effectively.     

Economic evaluation of nivolumab for the treatment of second-line advanced squamous NSCLC in Canada: a comparison of modeling approaches to estimate and extrapolate survival outcomes

Background Lung cancer is the most common type of cancer in the world and is associated with significant mortality. Nivolumab demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were previously treated. The cost-effectiveness of nivolumab has not been assessed in Canada. A contentious component of projecting long-term cost and outcomes in cancer relates to the modeling approach adopted, with the two most common approaches being partitioned survival (PS) and Markov models. The objectives of this analysis were to estimate the cost-utility of nivolumab and to compare the results using these alternative modeling approaches.

Methods Both PS and Markov models were developed using docetaxel and erlotinib as comparators. A three-health state model was used consisting of progression-free, progressed disease, and death. Disease progression and time to progression were estimated by identifying best-fitting survival curves from the clinical trial data for PFS and OS. Expected costs and health outcomes were calculated by combining health-state occupancy with medical resource use and quality-of-life assigned to each of the three health states. The health outcomes included in the model were survival and quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs).

Results Nivolumab was found to have the highest expected per-patient cost, but also improved per-patient life years (LYs) and QALYs. Nivolumab cost an additional $151,560 and $140,601 per QALY gained compared to docetaxel and erlotinib, respectively, using a PS model approach. The cost-utility estimates using a Markov model were very similar ($152,229 and $141,838, respectively, per QALY gained).

Conclusions Nivolumab was found to involve a trade-off between improved patient survival and QALYs, and increased cost. It was found that the use of a PS or Markov model produced very similar estimates of expected cost, outcomes, and incremental cost-utility.