Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban in the Secondary Prevention of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Sweden

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of person-centred care for patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Person-centred care has been shown to be cost-effective compared to usual care for several diseases, including acute coronary syndrome, in a short-term time perspective (< 2 years). The cost-effectiveness of person-centred care in a longer time perspective is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care for patients (< 65) with acute coronary syndrome, using a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective.

METHODS

The mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care was estimated by projecting the outcomes observed in a randomized-controlled trial together with data from health registers and data from the scientific literature, 3 years beyond the 2-year follow-up, using the developed simulation model. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Person-centred care entails lower costs and improved effectiveness as compared to usual care, for a 2-year time and a 5-year perspective. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that the likelihoods of the person-centred care being cost-effective compared to usual care were between 80 and 99% and between 75 and 90% for a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective (using a 500,000 SEK/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold).

CONCLUSIONS

Person-centred care was less costly and more effective compared to usual care in a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective for patients with acute coronary syndrome under the age of 65.

Rivaroxaban With or Without Aspirin for the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Clinical Implications of the COMPASS Trial

The COMPASS trial compared the impact of the selective direct factor Xa inhibitor, rivaroxaban, as monotherapy or in combination with aspirin on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with stable atherosclerotic disease. Patients treated with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily in combination with aspirin experienced fewer cardiovascular events but more bleeding complications than those who received aspirin monotherapy. In contrast, a higher dose of rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) and aspirin produced no clinical benefit and continued to be associated with greater bleeding rates than aspirin. Examining this study in the context of other trials of anticoagulant therapy in atherosclerotic vascular disease, this review attempts to place the role of very low-dose rivaroxaban in clinical context and highlights areas for future research.

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

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.

Influenza vaccination in acute coronary syndromes patients in Thailand: the cost-effectiveness analysis of the prevention for cardiovascular events and pneumonia

BACKGROUND

Influenza vaccination has been clinically shown to reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, but the economic perspectives can provide important data to make informed decisions. This study aimed to perform the economic evaluation of lifelong annual influenza vaccination for cardiovascular events and well-established pneumonia prevention.

METHODS

Lifetime costs, life-expectancy, and quality-adjusted live years (QALYs) were estimated beyond one-year cycle length of a six-health states Markov model condition on whether a hospitalization for ACS, stroke, heart failure, pneumonia, no hospitalizations occurred, or death. The comparison of three age-groups of 40-49, 50-65, and > 65 years scenario was performed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB) were presented as a societal perspective in 2016. The model robustness was determined by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The influenza vaccination was cost-effective in all age-groups, by dominant ICERs (lower cost with higher effectiveness) which was completely lower than acceptable willingness-to-pay threshold of Thailand [160,000 THB (4,466.8 USD) per QALYs], with a great incremental value of NMB. Especially, the 50-year-old-and-above scenario was shown as the most benefit at 129,092 THB (3,603.9 USD) for each patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The annually additional influenza vaccination to standard treatment in ACS was cost-effective in all age-groups, which should be considered in clinical practice and health-policy making process.