Cost-effectiveness Of Rivaroxaban Research Articles

The Study of Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Who Developed Ischemic Stroke.

Introduction Rivaroxaban is a new anticoagulant providing benefits for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared to warfarin in patients with AF. Method This economic evaluation study was conducted among 144 selected nonrandomly patients who were treated with rivaroxaban or warfarin and suffered from AF leading to stroke, in the stroke ward of Shiraz Nemazee Hospital in 2019. The final and clinical (intermediate) outcomes were QALYs and no bleeding and prevention of ischemic stroke, respectively. The study was performed from the social perspective, and a deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify the effects of uncertainty. The analysis of the collected data was carried out using SPSS18 and TreeAge software. Results Patients who received rivaroxaban had lower costs ($ 25275 vs. $ 26554) and higher QALYs (0.5 vs. 0.33) compared to those taking warfarin. Bleeding and stroke occurred in (9 vs. 40) and (1 vs. 3) patients in the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups, respectively, and there was a significant decrease in the incidence of bleeding in the rivaroxaban group (81.9% vs 44.4%). Thus, rivaroxaban in all the outcomes was cheaper and more effective than warfarin. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. Conclusions Considering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, rivaroxaban is more cost-effective and can be a dominant alternative. Therefore, it is suggested to use rivaroxaban as the first priority in AF patients because rivaroxaban reduces costs and increases clinical outcomes compared with warfarin.

CE1 - Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban and Aspirin Compared to Aspirin Alone in Patients with Stable Cardiovascular Disease: An Australian Perspective

Abstract Objective In light of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness, from the Australian healthcare perspective, of rivaroxaban in combination with aspirin versus aspirin alone for the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular disease among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease. Methods A Markov model was developed using input data from the COMPASS trial to predict the clinical course and costs of patients over a 20-year time-horizon. The model comprised of three health states: ‘Alive without recurrent CVD’, ‘Alive after recurrent CVD’ and ‘Dead’. Costs were from the Australian public healthcare system perspective, and estimated from published sources, as were utility data. The costs of rivaroxaban were based on current acquisition prices on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS) and assumed as AUD$3.09/day. The main outcome of interest was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and cost per year of life saved (YoLS). Costs and benefits were discounted by 5.0% per year. Results Compared to aspirin alone, rivaroxaban plus aspirin was estimated to cost an additional AUD$12,156 (discounted) per person, but lead to 0.516 YoLS (discounted) and 0.386 QALYs gained (discounted), over 20 years. These equated to ICERs of AUD$23,560/YoLS and AUD$31,436/QALY gained. We have assumed a threshold of AUD$50,000/QALY gained to signify cost-effectiveness. Conclusion Compared to aspirin, rivaroxaban in combination with aspirin is likely to be cost-effective in preventing recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared to aspirin alone in patients with stable cardiovascular disease: An Australian perspective

ObjectiveIn light of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness, from the Australian healthcare perspective, of rivaroxaban in combination with aspirin versus aspirin alone for the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular disease among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease. MethodsA Markov model was developed using input data from the COMPASS trial to predict the clinical course and costs of patients over a 20-year time-horizon. The model comprised of three health states: ‘Alive without recurrent CVD’, ‘Alive after recurrent CVD’ and ‘Dead’. Costs were from the Australian public healthcare system perspective, and estimated from published sources, as were utility data. The costs of rivaroxaban were based on current acquisition prices on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS) and assumed as AUD$3.09/day. The main outcome of interest was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and cost per year of life saved (YoLS). Costs and benefits were discounted by 5.0% per year. ResultsCompared to aspirin alone, rivaroxaban plus aspirin was estimated to cost an additional AUD$12,156 (discounted) per person, but lead to 0.516 YoLS (discounted) and 0.386 QALYs gained (discounted), over 20 years. These equated to ICERs of AUD$23,560/YoLS and AUD$31,436/QALY gained. We have assumed a threshold of AUD$50,000/QALY gained to signify cost-effectiveness. ConclusionCompared to aspirin, rivaroxaban in combination with aspirin is likely to be cost-effective in preventing recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease.

Health economic evaluation of rivaroxaban in elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

BackgroundElectrical cardioversion (ECV) is a procedure in which a direct current electric shock is used to quickly and effectively restore the normal sinus rhythm. Appropriate anticoagulation reduces the risk of embolic events during and after ECV. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with vitamin K oral antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing elective ECV in the Netherlands.Methods and resultsA static transmission model over a 1-year time horizon was developed to compare rivaroxaban with VKAs in terms of clinical outcomes, health effects (quality-adjusted life years; QALYs), and costs. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a societal and health care payer perspective at a willingness-to-pay level of €20,000 per QALY gained. The use of rivaroxaban as an anticoagulant in patients with atrial fibrillation scheduled for ECV would lead to a health gain of 0.23 QALYs per patient and would cost €1.83 per patient from the societal perspective, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7.92 per QALY gained. The probability of rivaroxaban being cost-saving compared with VKAs was 49.6% from this perspective. From the health care payer perspective, the incremental cost would be €509 per patient with a health gain of 0.23 QALYs per patient, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2198 per QALY gained.ConclusionsThe use of rivaroxaban in elective ECV is a cost-effective alternative to the use of VKAs. Rivaroxaban has a 50% probability of being cost-saving compared with VKAs and would increase a patient’s quality of life when non-health care costs such as productivity loss and informal care costs are taken into account.

PCV90 - Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Within Subgroups for Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism in The Netherlands

PCV90 - Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Within Subgroups for Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism in The Netherlands

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban versus Acenocoumarol in the Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation in Spain.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate, from the Spanish National Health System perspective, the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban (20 mg/day) versus use of acenocoumarol (5 mg/day) for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) at moderate to high risk for stroke. Methods: A Markov model was designed and populated with local cost estimates, efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in stroke prevention in NVAF compared with adjusted-dose warfarin clinical results from the pivotal phase III ROCKET AF trial and utility values obtained from the literature. Warfarin and acenocoumarol were assumed to have therapeutic equivalence. Results: Rivaroxaban treatment was associated with fewer ischemic strokes and systemic embolisms (0.289 vs.0.300 events), intracranial bleeds (0.051 vs.0.067), and myocardial infarctions (0.088 vs.0.102) per patient compared with acenocoumarol. Over a lifetime time horizon, rivaroxaban led to a reduction of 0.041 life-threatening events per patient, and increases of 0.103 life-years and 0.155 quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs) versus acenocoumarol treatment. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7045 per QALY and €10 602 per life-year gained. Sensitivity analysis indicated that these results were robust and that rivaroxaban is cost-effective compared with acenocoumarol in 89.4% of cases should a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30 000/QALY gained be considered. Conclusions: The present analysis suggests that rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to acenocoumarol therapy for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolisms in patients with NVAF in the Spanish healthcare setting.

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.

PCV80 - Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban in the Prevention of Stroke in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients in Italy

CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to VKA and is cost-saving for the SSN in the treatment of NVAF patients at highest unmet medical need.

Value-of-Information Analysis to Reduce Decision Uncertainty Associated with the Choice of Thromboprophylaxis after Total Hip Replacement in the Irish Healthcare Setting

The National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, in collaboration with the Health Services Executive, considers the cost effectiveness of all new medicines introduced into Ireland. Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) are conducted in accordance with the existing agreed Irish HTA guidelines. These guidelines do not specify a formal analysis of value of information (VOI). The aim of this study was to demonstrate the benefits of using VOI analysis in decreasing decision uncertainty and to examine the viability of applying these techniques as part of the formal HTA process for reimbursement purposes within the Irish healthcare system. The evaluation was conducted from the Irish health payer perspective. A lifetime model evaluated the cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban, dabigatran etexilate and enoxaparin sodium for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was determined directly from the probabilistic analysis (PSA). Population-level EVPI (PEVPI) was determined by scaling up the EVPI according to the decision incidence. The expected value of perfect parameter information (EVPPI) was calculated for the three model parameter subsets: probabilities, preference weights and direct medical costs. In the base-case analysis, rivaroxaban dominated both dabigatran etexilate and enoxaparin sodium. PSA indicated that rivaroxaban had the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy over a threshold range of &U20AC;0-&U20AC;100 000 per QALY. At a threshold of &U20AC;45 000 per QALY, the probability that rivaroxaban was the most cost-effective strategy was 67%. At a threshold of &U20AC;45 000 per QALY, assuming a 10-year decision time horizon, the PEVPI was &U20AC;11.96 million and the direct medical costs subset had the highest EVPPI value (&U20AC;9.00 million at a population level). In order to decrease uncertainty, a more detailed costing study was undertaken. In the subsequent analysis, rivaroxaban continued to dominate both comparators. In the PSA, rivaroxaban continued to have the highest probability of being optimal over the threshold range &U20AC;0-&U20AC;100 000 per QALY. At &U20AC;45 000 per QALY, the probability that rivaroxaban was the most cost-effective strategy increased to 80%. At &U20AC;45 000 per QALY, the 10-year PEVPI decreased to &U20AC;3.58 million and the population value associated with the direct medical costs fell to &U20AC;1.72 million. This increase in probability of cost effectiveness, coupled with a substantially reduced potential opportunity loss could influence a decision maker's confidence in making a reimbursement decision. On discussions with the decision maker we now intend to incorporate the use of VOI into our HTA process.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban in the prevention of venous thromboembolism: A Canadian analysis using the Ontario Ministry of Health Perspective

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.