Abstract

Introduction: Secondary prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with diagnosed cardiovascular disease and high ischemic risk poses a significant challenge in clinical practice. Both Ticagrelor and low-dose (LD) Rivaroxaban have shown superiority in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) than aspirin treatment alone. The comparative value for money of these two regimens remains unexplored. Hypothesis: Ticagrelor and LD-Rivaroxaban are comparable in their clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Methods: We analyzed the annualized cost needed to treat (CNT) of each regimen by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (aNNT) by the annual cost of each drug. The aNNTs were based on outcome data from PEGASUS TIMI-54 and COMPASS trials. Scenario analyses were performed to overcome variances in terms of population risk. Costs were based on 2021 US prices. Secondary outcomes analysis was performed for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and CV death as separate outcomes. Results: The aNNTs to prevent MACE with Ticagrelor and with LD-Rivaroxaban were 207 [95% confidence interval (CI):138-553] and 147 (95%CI:104-252), respectively. At an annual cost of $3,541 versus $4,308, the corresponding CNTs were 734,429$ (95%CI:489,619$-1,958,478$) with ticagrelor and 633,003$ (95%CI:446,826$-1,085,149$) with LD-Rivaroxaban. Results of the scenario and secondary outcomes analysis are presented in Figure 1 . Conclusions: LD-Rivaroxaban provides better value for money than Ticagrelor for secondary prevention of MACE. Ticagrelor offers an advantage over LD-Rivaroxaban specifically to prevent MI and should be considered in cases where MI is the primary concern.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call