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.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rivaroxaban for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in the Netherlands

Background: Until recently, standard treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) concerned a combination of short-term low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and long-term vitamin-K antagonist (VKA). Risk of bleeding and the requirement for regular anticoagulation monitoring are, however, limiting their use. Rivaroxaban is a novel oral anticoagulant associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeds (hazard ratio?=?0.54, 95% confidence interval?=?0.37–0.79) compared to LMWH/VKA therapy, and does not require regular anticoagulation monitoring.

Aims: To evaluate the health economic consequences of treating acute VTE patients with rivaroxaban compared to treatment with LMWH/VKA, viewed from the Dutch societal perspective.

Methods: A life-time Markov model was populated with the findings of the EINSTEIN phase III clinical trial to analyze cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban therapy in treatment and prevention of VTE from a Dutch societal perspective. Primary model outcomes were total and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as life expectancy and costs.

Results: Over a patient’s lifetime, rivaroxaban was shown to be dominant, with health gains of 0.047 QALYs and cost savings of €304 compared to LMWH/VKA therapy. Dominance was robustly present in all sensitivity analyses. Major drivers of the differences between the two treatment arms were related to anticoagulation monitoring (medical costs, travel costs, and loss of productivity) and the occurrence of major bleeds.

Conclusion: Rivaroxaban treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism results in health gains and cost savings compared to LMWH/VKA therapy. This conclusion holds for the Dutch setting, both for the societal perspective, as well as the healthcare perspective.     

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.     

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.     

The economic implications of switching to rivaroxaban from enoxaparin plus vitamin K antagonist in the treatment of venous thromboembolism

Abstract

Objective:

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) impacts ～900,000 individuals annually in the US, causing up to 100,000 deaths. Patients experiencing VTE have heightened risk of recurrence. Initial parenteral anti-coagulation is standard therapy for acute VTE followed by ≥3 months of warfarin, which introduces the risk of major bleeding. Balancing increased risks of bleeding and recurrent VTE remains challenging. Recent clinical trials suggest that rivaroxaban, an oral direct inhibitor of factor Xa, provides an effective, safe, simplified approach to treatment. This study considers the economic implications of these data.     

Cost-effectiveness of droxidopa in patients with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension: post-hoc economic analysis of Phase 3 clinical trial data

Objective:

Falls are associated with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) and are an economic burden on the US healthcare system. Droxidopa is approved by the US FDA to treat symptomatic nOH. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of droxidopa vs standard of care from a US payer perspective.

Methods:

A Markov model was used to predict numbers of falls and treatment responses using data from a randomized, double-blind trial of patients with Parkinson’s disease and nOH who received optimized droxidopa therapy or placebo for 8 weeks. The severity of falls, utility values, and injury-related costs were derived from published studies. Model outcomes included number of falls, number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and direct costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Outcomes were extrapolated over 12 months.

Results:

Patients receiving droxidopa had fewer falls compared with those receiving standard of care and gained 0.33 QALYs/patient. Estimated droxidopa costs were $30,112, with estimated cost savings resulting from fall avoidance of $14,574 over 12 months. Droxidopa was cost-effective vs standard of care, with ICERs of $47,001/QALY gained, $24,866 per avoided fall with moderate/major injury, and $1559 per avoided fall with no/minor injury. The main drivers were fall probabilities and fear of fall-related inputs.

Limitations:

A limitation of the current study is the reliance on falls data from a randomized controlled trial where the placebo group served as the proxy for standard of care. Data from a larger patient population, reflecting ‘real-life’ patient use and/or comparison with other agents used to treat nOH, would have been a useful complement, but these data were not available.

Conclusion:

Using Markov modeling, droxidopa appears to be a cost-effective option compared with standard of care in US clinical practice for the treatment of nOH.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in four European countries: Austria,Belgium, Greece,and Italy

Aim: The approved indication for denosumab (120?mg) was expanded in 2018 to include skeletal-related event (SRE) prevention in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Therefore, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing denosumab with zoledronic acid (ZA) for SRE prevention in patients with MM from the national healthcare system perspective in a representative sample of European countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy.

Methods: The XGEVA global economic model for patients with MM was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for denosumab vs ZA over a lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were derived from the denosumab vs ZA randomized, phase 3 study (“20090482”) in patients newly-diagnosed with MM, and comprised real-world adjusted SRE rates, serious adverse event (SAE) rates, treatment duration, dose intensity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Economic inputs comprised country-specific denosumab and ZA acquisition and administration costs, SRE and SAE management costs, and discount rates. Health utility decrements associated with MM disease progression, SRE and SAE occurrence, and route of administration were included.

Results: Estimated ICERs (cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) for denosumab vs ZA in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy were €26,294, €17,737, €6,982, and €27,228, respectively. Using 1–3 times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita per QALY as willingness to pay thresholds, denosumab was 69–94%, 84–96%, 79–96%, and 50–92% likely to be cost-effective vs ZA, respectively.

Limitations: Economic inputs were derived from various sources, and time to event inputs were extrapolated from 20090482 study data.

Conclusions: Denosumab is cost-effective vs ZA for SRE prevention in patients with MM in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy, based on often-adopted World Health Organization thresholds. This conclusion is robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions. Cost-effectiveness estimates varied across the four countries, reflecting differences in healthcare costs and national economic evaluation guidelines.