The Cost of Clopidogrel Use in Atrial Fibrillation in the ACTIVE-A Trial

One-month DAPT with ticagrelor and aspirin for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: rationale and design of the randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled ODIN trial

The optimal antiplatelet strategy after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is unclear. Adding the P2Y12 inhibitor, ticagrelor, to low-dose aspirin for 1 year is associated with a reduction in graft failure, particularly saphenous vein grafts, at the expense of an increased risk of clinically important bleeding. As the risk of thrombotic graft failure and ischaemic events is highest early after CABG surgery, a better risk-to-benefit profile may be attained with short-term dual antiplatelet therapy followed by single antiplatelet therapy. The One Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Ticagrelor in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Patients (ODIN) trial is a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicentre study of 700 subjects that will evaluate the effect of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus low-dose aspirin after CABG in patients with CCS. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or matching placebo, in addition to aspirin 75-150 mg once daily for 1 month; after the first month, antiplatelet therapy will be continued with aspirin alone. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, revascularisation and graft failure at 1 year. The key secondary endpoint is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 bleeding, revascularisation and graft failure at 1 year (net clinical benefit). ODIN will report whether the addition of ticagrelor to low-dose aspirin for 1 month after CABG reduces ischaemic events and provides a net clinical benefit in patients with CCS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05997693).

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.

The cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in the COMPASS trial

AIMS

The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin 100 mg was more effective than aspirin 100 mg daily alone for the prevention of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban using patient-level data from the COMPASS trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed an in-trial analysis and extrapolated our results for 33 years using a two-state Markov model with a 1-year cycle length. Hospitalization events, procedures, and study drugs were documented for patients. We applied country-specific (Canada, France, and Germany) direct healthcare system costs (in USD) to healthcare resources consumed by patients. Average cost per patient during the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost-effectiveness were calculated. Costs of events and procedures were reduced with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID with aspirin. The addition of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID increased total costs for the combination group. Over a lifetime horizon (in trial +33 years), rivaroxaban plus aspirin was associated with 1.17 QALYs gained, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3946/QALY, $9962/QALY, and $10 264/QALY in Canada, France, and Germany, respectively. PAD and polyvascular disease subgroups had lower ICERs.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduces direct healthcare costs. After acquisition costs of rivaroxaban, the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin is highly cost-effective in Canada, France, and Germany.(COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424).

Cost Implications of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion During Cardiac Surgery: A Cost Analysis of the LAAOS III Trial

Background The LAAOS III (Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study) clinical trial demonstrated that concomitant left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion leads to a lower risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism compared with no occlusion in participants with atrial fibrillation and a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery for another indication. We report the cost implications of concomitant LAA occlusion during cardiac surgery. Methods and Results Using LAAOS III data, we compared the costs (in US dollars) associated with LAA occlusion to no occlusion from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We calculated the average cost per participant during the trial by applying Medicare reimbursement costs to cardiovascular events for all trial participants. We conducted sensitivity analyses, varying the cost of stroke ±25% and occlusion technique use. Cost neutrality was defined as a mean cost difference within ±5% of the cost per participant in the no-occlusion group. Total study cost per participant was $3878 in the LAA occlusion group and $4490 in the no-occlusion group, a mean difference of -$612 (95% CI, -$1276 to $45). The main drivers of cost savings were fewer stroke events during the trial (mean difference of -$1021). In sensitivity analyses, LAA occlusion was cost saving for suture and stapler techniques but more expensive with closure device. Conclusions Concomitant LAA occlusion was cost saving for participants in LAAOS III. Our findings support concomitant LAA occlusion as an economically dominant strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery.

The impact of statistical properties of incremental monetary net benefit and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio on health economic modeling choices

INTRODUCTION

There is controversy on whether to use incremental monetary net benefit (INMB) or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in health economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials. We studied the impact of restricted mean survival time (RMST) on the long-term projection of INMB and ICER.

METHODS

We analyzed the unbiasedness and efficiency of ICER and INMB by (1) deriving the metrics' expected values and variances based on theoretical probability distributions, (2) simulating their 15-year post-trial projections based on between-arm-RMST-gained through a 2 × 4 × 2 factorial experiment of Markov 2-state microsimulations. Simulations and comparison were run on the data from the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies Study (COMPASS).

RESULTS

Our simulation findings using RMST showed that ICER was more efficient than INMB, regardless of disease populations, time horizon, modeling choices, and underlying probability distributions of incremental mean cost and effect. ICER had a small variance and thus showed its robustness to the choices of models.

CONCLUSION

INMB's variance varies with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold quadratically while ICER's variance with a WTP threshold value quadratically while ICER's variance with incremental-mean-cost quadratically. A simple and naïve model can sufficiently estimate ICER. Future metrics are expected to be health-economic-meaningful, unambiguous, unbiased, efficient, and statistical-inference-friendly.

The cost implications of a polypill for primary prevention in the TIPS-3 trial

AIMS

The International Polycap Study 3 (TIPS-3) trial demonstrated that a polypill containing cholesterol- and multiple blood-pressure-lowering drugs reduces cardiovascular events by 20% compared with placebo in people without cardiovascular disease. The polypill plus aspirin led to a 31% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular disease events compared with double placebo. We report regional variations in costs and affordability of a polypill based on the TIPS-3 trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Countries were categorized using World Bank economic groups: lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income countries. Country-specific costs were obtained for hospitalization events, procedures, and non-study medications (2019 US dollars). Polypill price was based on the cheapest equivalent substitute (CES) for each component. For the polypill vs. placebo, the difference in cost over the 4.6 years of the trial was $291 [95% confidence interval (CI): $243-339] per participant in lower-middle-income countries, $1068 (95% CI: $992-1144) in upper-middle-income countries, and $48 (95% CI: -$271 to $367) in high-income countries. Results were similar for the polypill plus aspirin vs. a double placebo. In both cases, the polypill was affordable in all groups using monthly household capacity to pay or a threshold of 4% of the gross national income per capita.

CONCLUSION

The use of a polypill (CES) in TIPS-3 increases costs in lower-middle-income countries and upper-middle-income countries but is affordable in countries at various economic levels and is cost neutral (dominant) in high-income countries.

The Cost Implications of Dabigatran in Patients with Myocardial Injury After Non-Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

The Management of Myocardial Injury after Non-Cardiac Surgery (MANAGE) trial demonstrated that dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was more effective than placebo in preventing the primary composite outcome of vascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-hemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, amputation and symptomatic venous thromboembolism in patients with myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS). The cost implications of dabigatran for this population are unknown but are important given the significant clinical implications.

METHODS

Hospitalized events, procedures, and study and non-study medications were documented. We applied Canadian unit costs to healthcare resources consumed for all patients in the trial, and calculated the average cost per patient in Canadian dollars for the duration of the study (median follow-up of 16 months). A sensitivity analysis was performed using only Canadian patients, and subgroup analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

The total study cost for the dabigatran group was $9985 per patient, compared with $10,082 for placebo, a difference of - $97 (95% confidence interval [CI] - $2128 to $3672). Savings arising from fewer clinical events and procedures in the dabigatran 110 mg twice-daily group were enough to offset the cost of the study drug. In Canadian patients, the difference was $250 (95% CI -$2848 to $4840). Both differences were considered cost neutral. Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was cost saving or cost neutral in many subgroups that were considered.

CONCLUSION

Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was cost neutral for patients in the MANAGE trial. Our cost findings support the use of dabigatran 110 mg twice daily in patients with MINS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number NCT01661101.

The cost implication of primary prevention in the HOPE 3 trial

Aims

The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) found that rosuvastatin alone or with candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) (in a subgroup with hypertension) significantly lowered cardiovascular events compared with placebo in 12 705 individuals from 21 countries at intermediate risk and without cardiovascular disease. We assessed the costs implications of implementation in primary prevention in countries at different economic levels.

Methods and results

Hospitalizations, procedures, study and non-study medications were documented. We applied country-specific costs to the healthcare resources consumed for each patient. We calculated the average cost per patient in US dollars for the duration of the study (5.6 years). Sensitivity analyses were also performed with cheapest equivalent substitutes. The combination of rosuvastatin with candesartan/HCT reduced total costs and was a cost-saving strategy in United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. In contrast, the treatments were more expensive in developing countries even when cheapest equivalent substitutes were used. After adjustment for gross domestic product (GDP), the costs of cheapest equivalent substitutes in proportion to the health care costs were higher in developing countries in comparison to developed countries.

Conclusion

Rosuvastatin and candesartan/HCT in primary prevention is a cost-saving approach in developed countries, but not in developing countries as both drugs and their cheapest equivalent substitutes are relatively more expensive despite adjustment by GDP. Reductions in costs of these drugs in developing countries are essential to make statins and blood pressure lowering drugs affordable and ensure their use.

Clinical trial registration

HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.

Cost implications of the use of basal insulin glargine in people with early dysglycemia: the ORIGIN trial

AIMS

The cost implications of the Outcome Reduction with an Initial Glargine Intervention (ORIGIN) trial were evaluated using a prespecified analysis plan.

METHODS

Purchasing power parity-adjusted country-specific costs were applied to consumed healthcare resources by participants from each country. Subgroup analyses were conducted on subgroups based on baseline metabolic status and diabetes duration.

RESULTS

The total undiscounted cost per participant in the insulin glargine arm was $13,491 ($13,080 to $14,254) versus $11,189 ($10,568 to $12,147) for standard care, an increase of $2303 ($1370 to $3235; p < 0.0001); the discounted increase was $2099 ($1276 to $2923; P < 0.0001). The greater number of mainly generic oral anti-diabetic agents in the standard group partially offset the higher cost of basal insulin glargine. As the trial progressed and the standard group required more anti-diabetic medications, the annual cost difference decreased, reaching $68 (-$160 to $295) in the last year. The subgroup whose baseline diabetes duration was ≥ 6 years achieved cost-savings during the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

From a global perspective basal insulin glargine use in ORIGIN incurred greater costs than standard care using older generic drugs. Nevertheless, the cost difference fell with time such that the intervention was cost-neutral by the last year.

Clinical outcomes and cost implications of routine early PCI after fibrinolysis: one-year follow-up of the Trial of Routine Angioplasty and Stenting after Fibrinolysis to Enhance Reperfusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TRANSFER-AMI) study

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolysis, routine early percutaneous coronary intervention (r-PCI) improves clinical outcomes at 30 days compared with a more standard approach of performing early PCI only for failed fibrinolysis (s-PCI).

METHODS

We report prespecified secondary clinical outcomes and cost implications of r-PCI compared with s-PCI from the Canadian TRANSFER-AMI trial. Average cost per patient in each arm was calculated based on a microcosting approach. Bootstrap method (5,000 samples) was used to calculate standard errors and 95% CI.

RESULTS

At 1 year, rates of death or reinfarction (10.3% vs 11.6%, P = .50), hospital readmission (15.4% vs 16.5%, P = .64) and subsequent revascularization after index hospitalization (6.9% vs 8.7%, P = .30) were similar between the r-PCI and s-PCI arms. The difference in cost per patient between r-PCI and s-PCI was CAD $1,003 (95% CI, -$247 to $2,211). Since a greater proportion of patients were transported by air (vs land) in the r-PCI arm (9.4% vs 3%), and the ratio of abciximab to eptifibatide use was higher in the r-PCI arm compared with s-PCI (2:1 vs 4:5), we undertook additional post hoc cost scenario analyses. In a scenario where patients are transported by land only and eptifibatide is used as the sole GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor, the difference in cost per patient between r-PCI and s-PCI was estimated to be CAD $108 (95% CI, -$1,114 to $1,344).

CONCLUSIONS

At 1 year, there is no difference in the clinical composite outcome of death or reinfarction between r-PCI and s-PCI strategies. Greater cost with r-PCI, although statistically insignificant, is economically important.