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.     

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.     

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.     

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 comparison of continued anticoagulation with rivaroxaban versus placebo based on the 1-year EINSTEIN-Extension trial efficacy and safety results

Aims: The EINSTEIN-Extension trial (EINSTEIN-EXT) found that continued treatment with rivaroxaban for an additional 6 or 12 months (vs placebo) after 6–12 months of initial anticoagulation significantly reduced the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) with a small non-significant increased risk of major bleeding (none fatal or in critical site). This study aimed to compare total healthcare cost between rivaroxaban and placebo, based on the EINSTEIN-EXT event rates.

Methods: Total healthcare cost was calculated as the sum of treatment and clinical event costs from a US managed care perspective. Treatment duration and event rates were obtained from the EINSTEIN-EXT study. Adjustment on treatment duration was made by assuming a 10% non-adherence rate. Drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Cost estimates for clinical events (i.e. recurrent deep vein thrombosis [DVT], recurrent pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding) were determined from the literature. Results were examined over a ±20% range of each cost component and over 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of event rate differences in deterministic (one-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

Results: Total healthcare cost was $1,454 lower for rivaroxaban-treated (vs placebo-treated) patients in the base-case, with a lower clinical event cost fully offsetting drug cost. The cost savings of recurrent DVT alone (–$3,102) was greater than drug cost ($2,723). Total healthcare cost remained lower for rivaroxaban in the majority (73%) of PSA (cost difference [95% CI]?=?–$1,454 [–$2,396, $1,231]).

Limitations: This study was conducted over the 1-year observation period of the EINSTEIN-EXT trial, which limited “real-world” applicability and examination of long-term economic impact. Assumptions on drug and clinical event costs were US-based and, thus, not applicable to other healthcare systems.

Conclusions: Total healthcare costs were estimated to be lower for patients continuing rivaroxaban therapy compared to those receiving placebo in VTE patients who had completed 6–12 months of VTE treatment.     

Societal burden of cluster headache in the United States: a descriptive economic analysis

Aim: To estimate direct and indirect costs in patients with a diagnosis of cluster headache in the US.

Methods: Adult patients (18–64 years of age) enrolled in the Marketscan Commercial and Medicare Databases with ≥2 non-diagnostic outpatient (≥30 days apart between the two outpatient claims) or ≥1 inpatient diagnoses of cluster headache (ICD-9-CM code 339.00, 339.01, or 339.02) between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014, were included in the analyses. Patients had ≥6 months of continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy coverage before and after the index date (first cluster headache diagnosis). Three outcomes were evaluated: (1) healthcare resource utilization, (2) direct healthcare costs, and (3) indirect costs associated with work days lost due to absenteeism and short-term disability. Direct costs included costs of all-cause and cluster headache-related outpatient, inpatient hospitalization, surgery, and pharmacy claims. Indirect costs were based on an average daily wage, which was estimated from the 2014?US Bureau of Labor Statistics and inflated to 2015 dollars.

Results: There were 9,328 patients with cluster headache claims included in the analysis. Cluster headache-related total direct costs (mean [standard deviation]) were $3,132 [$13,396] per patient per year (PPPY), accounting for 17.8% of the all-cause total direct cost. Cluster headache-related inpatient hospitalizations ($1,604) and pharmacy ($809) together ($2,413) contributed over 75% of the cluster headache-related direct healthcare cost. There were three sub-groups of patients with claims associated with indirect costs that included absenteeism, short-term disability, and absenteeism?+?short-term disability. Indirect costs PPPY were $4,928 [$4,860] for absenteeism, $803 [$2,621] for short-term disability, and $3,374 [$3,198] for absenteeism?+?disability.

Conclusion: Patients with cluster headache have high healthcare costs that are associated with inpatient admissions and pharmacy fulfillments, and high indirect costs associated with absenteeism and short-term disability.     

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.     

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

Abstract

Objective: Patients with cancer are at high risk for developing primary but also recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study examined healthcare utilization (HRU) and costs related to VTE recurrence among cancer patients.

Methods: Medical and pharmacy claims from the Humana Database were used to compare HRU (outpatient visits, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and hospitalization days) and healthcare costs among cancer patients with a single VTE event (between 01/2013 and 06/2015) and those with recurrent VTE during the follow-up period (from initiation of anticoagulant therapy until end of eligibility or data availability). All-cause and VTE-related HRU and costs were evaluated using Poisson regression, and healthcare costs were compared using mean differences reported as per-patient-per-year (PPPY).

Results: Of 2,428 newly diagnosed cancer patients who developed VTE, 413 (17.1%) experienced recurrent VTE during the follow-up period (mean = 9 months). Patients with recurrent VTE had higher all-cause and VTE-related HRU and costs compared to those without recurrence. Patients with recurrent VTE also had over 3.19-times more VTE-related hospitalizations (RR [95% CI]?=?3.19 [2.93–3.47]), and 3.88-times more VTE-related hospitalization days (RR [95% CI]?=?3.88 [3.74–4.02]) than patients without a VTE recurrence. Total VTE-related healthcare costs were $39,641 PPPY among patients with recurrent VTE, $29,142 higher compared to those without recurrence ($10,499 PPPY). This difference was mainly driven by hospitalization costs.

Conclusion: Recurrent VTE among cancer patients is associated with significant HRU and healthcare costs, notably hospitalizations. Strategies to reduce VTE recurrence in patients with cancer can contribute to reducing healthcare cost.     

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 versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the Japanese healthcare setting

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

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.     

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.     

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.     

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among psoriasis patients treated with biologics,overall and by disease severity

Aims: To describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among biologic-treated psoriasis patients in the US, overall and by disease severity.

Materials and methods: IQVIA PharMetrics Plus administrative claims data were linked with Modernizing Medicine Data Services Electronic Health Record data and used to select adult psoriasis patients between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014. Eligible patients were classified by disease severity (mild, moderate, severe) using a hierarchy of available clinical measures. One-year outcomes included all-cause and psoriasis-related outpatient, emergency department, inpatient, and pharmacy HCRU and costs.

Results: This study identified 2,130 biologic-treated psoriasis patients: 282 (13%) had mild, 116 (5%) moderate, and 49 (2%) severe disease; 1,683 (79%) could not be classified. The mean age was 47.6 years; 45.4% were female. Relative to mild psoriasis patients, patients with moderate or severe disease had more median all-cause outpatient encounters (28.0 [mild] vs 32.0 [moderate], 36.0 [severe]), more median psoriasis-related outpatient encounters (6.0 [mild] vs 7.5 [moderate], 8.0 [severe]), and a higher proportion of overall claims for medications that were psoriasis-related (28% [mild] vs 37% [moderate], 34% [severe]). Relative to mild psoriasis patients, patients with moderate or severe disease had higher median all-cause total costs ($37.7k [mild] vs $42.3k [moderate], $49.3k [severe]), higher median psoriasis-related total costs ($32.7k [mild] vs $34.9k [moderate], $40.5k [severe]), higher median all-cause pharmacy costs ($33.9k [mild] vs $36.5k [moderate], $36.4k [severe]), and higher median psoriasis-related pharmacy costs ($32.2k [mild] vs $33.9k [moderate], $35.6k [severe]).

Limitations: The assessment of psoriasis disease severity may not have necessarily coincided with the timing of biologic use. The definition of disease severity prevented the assessment of temporality, and may have introduced selection bias.

Conclusions: Biologic-treated patients with moderate or severe psoriasis cost the healthcare system more than patients with mild psoriasis, primarily driven by higher pharmacy costs and more outpatient encounters.     

Healthcare costs in psoriasis and psoriasis sub-groups over time following psoriasis diagnosis

Aims: To quantify healthcare costs in patients with psoriasis overall and in psoriasis patient sub-groups, by level of disease severity, presence or absence of psoriatic arthritis, or use of biologics.

Methods: Administrative data from Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Research Database were used to select adult patients with psoriasis from January 2009 to January 2014. The first psoriasis diagnosis was set as the index date. Patients were required to have ≥6 months of continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy benefits pre-index and ≥12 months post-index. Patients were followed from index until the earliest of loss to follow-up or study end. All-cause healthcare costs and outpatient pharmacy costs were calculated for the overall psoriasis cohort and for the six different psoriasis patient sub-groups: (a) patients with moderate-to-severe disease and mild disease, (b) patients with psoriatic arthritis and those without, and (c) patients on biologics and those who are not. Costs are presented per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and by years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of follow-up, expressed in 2014?US dollars.

Results: A total of 108,790 psoriasis patients were selected, with a mean age of 46.0 years (52.7% females). Average follow-up was 962 days. All-cause healthcare costs were $12,523 PPPY. Outpatient pharmacy costs accounted for 38.6% of total costs. All-cause healthcare costs were highest for patients on biologics ($29,832), then for patients with psoriatic arthritis ($23,427) and those with moderate-to-severe disease ($21,481). Overall, all-cause healthcare costs and outpatient pharmacy costs presented an upward trend over a 5-year period.

Conclusions: Psoriasis is associated with significant economic burden, which increases over time as the disease progresses. Patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, those with psoriatic arthritis, or use of biologics contributes to higher healthcare costs. Psoriasis-related pharmacy expenditure is the largest driver of healthcare costs in patients with psoriasis.     

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.     

A cost-analysis model for anticoagulant treatment in the hospital setting

Background:

Rivaroxaban is the first oral factor Xa inhibitor approved in the US to reduce the risk of stroke and blood clots among people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, treat deep vein thrombosis (DVT), treat pulmonary embolism (PE), reduce the risk of recurrence of DVT and PE, and prevent DVT and PE after knee or hip replacement surgery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the costs from a hospital perspective of treating patients with rivaroxaban vs other anticoagulant agents across these five populations.

Methods:

An economic model was developed using treatment regimens from the ROCKET-AF, EINSTEIN-DVT and PE, and RECORD1-3 randomized clinical trials. The distribution of hospital admissions used in the model across the different populations was derived from the 2010 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database. The model compared total costs of anticoagulant treatment, monitoring, inpatient stay, and administration for patients receiving rivaroxaban vs other anticoagulant agents. The length of inpatient stay (LOS) was determined from the literature.

Results:

Across all populations, rivaroxaban was associated with an overall mean cost savings of $1520 per patient. The largest cost savings associated with rivaroxaban was observed in patients with DVT or PE ($6205 and $2742 per patient, respectively). The main driver of the cost savings resulted from the reduction in LOS associated with rivaroxaban, contributing to ～90% of the total savings. Furthermore, the overall mean anticoagulant treatment cost was lower for rivaroxaban vs the reference groups.

Limitations:

The distribution of patients across indications used in the model may not be generalizable to all hospitals, where practice patterns may vary, and average LOS cost may not reflect the actual reimbursements that hospitals received.

Conclusion:

From a hospital perspective, the use of rivaroxaban may be associated with cost savings when compared to other anticoagulant treatments due to lower drug cost and shorter LOS associated with rivaroxaban.     

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.