Cost-effectiveness analysis of rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in secondary prevention among patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases

The Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Compared with Aspirin Alone in the COMPASS Trial: A US Perspective

BACKGROUND

Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg daily was shown to be better than aspirin 100 mg daily for preventing cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with either stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). The cost-effectiveness of this regimen in this population is essential for decision-makers to know.

METHODS

US direct healthcare system costs (in USD) were applied to hospitalized events, procedures and study drugs utilized by all patients. We determined the mean cost per participant for the full duration of the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months) plus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime using a two-state Markov model with 1-year cycle length. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the price of rivaroxaban and the annual discontinuation rate.

RESULTS

The costs of events and procedures were reduced for Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) patients who received rivaroxaban 2.5 mg orally (BID) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. Total costs were higher for the combination group ($7426 versus $4173) after considering acquisition costs of the study drug. Over a lifetime, patients receiving rivaroxaban plus ASA incurred $27,255 more and gained 1.17 QALYs compared with those receiving ASA alone resulting in an ICER of $23,295/QALY. ICERs for PAD only and polyvascular disease subgroups were lower.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID plus ASA compared with ASA alone was cost-effective (high value) in the USA. COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424.

Economic evaluation of new blood pressure target for hypertensive patients in Taiwan according to the 2022 hypertension clinical practice guidelines of the Taiwan society of cardiology: a simulation modeling study

With the promising cardiovascular benefits in the STEP and SPRINT trials, the 2022 Taiwan's hypertension guidelines redefined the hypertension threshold as 130/80 mmHg and a universal blood-pressure target of <130/80 mmHg. This study's objective was to examine the cost-effectiveness of the intensive blood-pressure target for hypertensive patients using estimated lifetime medical costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) from the Taiwan national payer's perspective. We developed a lifetime Markov model comparing the intensive and conservative blood-pressure targets. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against the willing-to-pay thresholds at the one-time [US$34,000(NT$1,020,000)] and three-time [US$100,000(NT$3,000,000)] gross domestic product per capita were defined as very cost-effect and only cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness in different age stratifications and cardiovascular risks treated with a more intensive target (120 mmHg) were examined in the subgroup analyses. The new blood-pressure treatment target produced more lifetime medical costs [US$31,589(NT$947,670) versus US$26,788(NT$803,640)] and QALYs (12.54 versus 12.25), and the ICER was US$16,589(NT$497,670), which was 99.1% and 100% probability of a very cost-effective and cost-effective strategy. The ICERs in all age stratifications had more than a 90% probability of being very cost-effective, and ICERs decreased with age. More intensive control in patients with high cardiovascular risks produced a lower ICER [US$14,547(NT$436,410)]. In conclusion, Taiwan's new blood-pressure treatment target can prevent more cardiovascular events with acceptable costs per QALY below the willing-to-pay thresholds. The cost-effectiveness of intensive control is consistent across different ages and more pronounced with the increase in age and cardiovascular risk.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban in Chinese Patients With Stable Cardiovascular Disease

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone for patients with stable cardiovascular diseases in the China.

Methods: We used TreeAge 2019 to construct a Markov model to assess the direct healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years for three therapies, namely low-does rivaroxaban plus aspirin, rivaroxaban alone, and aspirin alone. Transitional probabilities were derived from the COMPASS trial, and the costs and utilities were obtained from the Chinese Health Care Statistical Yearbook and published studies. Use the Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to describe the results. The willingness-to-pay threshold is set at US$11,000 (China’s 2020 Gross National Product per capita).

Result: In patients with stable cardiovascular disease, the increased cost per quality-adjusted life year gained in the low-dose rivaroxaban combined with aspirin group compared to the aspirin alone group was US$7937.30. The increased cost per quality-adjusted life year gained in the rivaroxaban alone group versus the aspirin alone group was US$15,045.78.

Conclusion: A low-does rivaroxaban plus aspirin therapy may be cost-effective in the secondary prevention of stable cardiovascular disease in patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Add-on Empagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction From the Healthcare System's Perspective in the Asia-Pacific Region

Background: EMPEROR-Reduced trial provides promising evidence on the efficacy of empagliflozin adding to the standard treatment in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of add-on empagliflozin vs. standard therapy alone in HFrEF from the perspective of the Asia-Pacific healthcare systems.

Methods: A Markov model was constructed to simulate HFrEF patients and to project the lifetime direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of both therapies. Transitional probabilities were derived from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial. Country-specific costs and utilities were extracted from published resources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against willingness to pay (WTP) threshold was used to examine the cost-effectiveness. A series of sensitivity analyses was performed to ensure the robustness of the results.

Results: The ICERs of add-on empagliflozin vs. standard therapy alone in HFrEF were US$20,508, US$24,046, US$8,846, US$53,791, US$21,543, and US$20,982 per QALY gained in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Australia, respectively. Across these countries, the probabilities of being cost-effective for using add-on empagliflozin under the WTP threshold of 3-times country-specific gross domestic product per capita were 93.7% in Taiwan, 95.6% in Japan, 96.3% in South Korea, 94.2% Singapore, 51.9% in Thailand, and 95.9% in Australia. The probabilities were reduced when shortening the time horizon, assuming the same cardiovascular mortality for both treatments, and setting lower WTP thresholds.

Conclusion: Adding empagliflozin to HFrEF treatment is expected to be a cost-effective option among the Asia-Pacific countries. The cost-effectiveness is influenced by the WTP thresholds of different countries.