Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Extended Duration Anticoagulation with Rivaroxaban to Prevent Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism

Protocol for a modelling study to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of indefinite anticoagulant therapy for first unprovoked venous thromboembolism

INTRODUCTION

Deciding whether to stop or extend anticoagulant therapy indefinitely after completing at least 3 months of initial treatment for a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a challenge for clinicians, patients and policy makers. Guidelines suggest an indefinite duration of anticoagulant therapy in these patients, yet its benefits, harms and costs have not been formally assessed. The aim of this proposed modelling study is to assess the differences in clinical benefits, harms and costs of stopping versus continuing anticoagulant therapy indefinitely for a first unprovoked VTE.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will develop a probabilistic Markov model, adopting a 1-month cycle length and a lifetime horizon, to estimate life-years, quality-adjusted life-years, costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for a simulated population of patients with a first unprovoked VTE who will receive indefinite duration of anticoagulant therapy versus a population who will not receive extended treatment after completing 3 months of initial anticoagulant therapy. The economic evaluation will adopt a third-party payer perspective relating to a Canadian publicly funded healthcare system. Estimates for the probability of relevant clinical events will be informed by systematic reviews and meta-analyses, while costs and utility values will be obtained from published Canadian sources. Stratified analyses based on sex, age and site of initial VTE will also be performed to identify subgroups of patients with a first unprovoked VTE in whom continuing anticoagulant therapy indefinitely might prove to be clinically beneficial and cost-effective over stopping treatment. We will also conduct sensitivity and scenario analyses to assess robustness of study findings to changes in individual or groups of key parameters.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not applicable for this study. The results will be disseminated through presentations at relevant conferences and in a manuscript that will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.

American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), occurs in ∼1 to 2 individuals per 1000 each year, corresponding to ∼300 000 to 600 000 events in the United States annually.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about treatment of VTE.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and adult patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 28 recommendations for the initial management of VTE, primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent VTE events.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include the use of thrombolytic therapy for patients with PE and hemodynamic compromise, use of an international normalized ratio (INR) range of 2.0 to 3.0 over a lower INR range for patients with VTE who use a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for secondary prevention, and use of indefinite anticoagulation for patients with recurrent unprovoked VTE. Conditional recommendations include the preference for home treatment over hospital-based treatment for uncomplicated DVT and PE at low risk for complications and a preference for direct oral anticoagulants over VKA for primary treatment of VTE.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin plus warfarin for the treatment of hospitalised acute deep vein thrombosis in China

OBJECTIVE

Limited economic evaluation data for rivaroxaban compared with standard of care (SoC) exists in China. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with current SoC (enoxaparin overlapped with warfarin) for the treatment of acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was adapted from a payer's perspective to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients with DVT treated with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin/warfarin. Clinical data from the EINSTEIN-DVT trial were obtained to estimate the transition probabilities. Data on Chinese health resource use, unit costs and utility parameters were collected from previously published literature and used to estimate the total costs and QALYs. The time horizon was set at 5 years and a 3-month cycle length was used in the model. A 5% discount rate was applied to the projected costs. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess the impact of uncertainty on results.

RESULTS

Rivaroxaban therapy resulted in an increase of 0.008 QALYs and was associated with lower total costs compared with enoxaparin/warfarin (US$4744.4 vs US$5572.4, respectively), demonstrating it to be a cost-saving treatment strategy. The results were mainly sensitive to length of hospitalisation due to DVT on enoxaparin/warfarin, cost per day of hospitalisation and the difference in length of stay of rivaroxaban-treated and enoxaparin/warfarin-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban therapy resulted in a cost saving compared with enoxaparin/warfarin for the anticoagulation treatment of patients with hospitalised acute DVT in China.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00440193; Post-results.

Age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and a non-high pretest probability, the use of an age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff (AADD, <500 ng/mL up to 50 years, then

METHODS

We created a decision tree to compare the use of the AADD with the standard D-dimer cutoff. The model included short-term venous thromboembolism-related events and long-term complications, their associated morbidity/mortality, and costs. Probabilities were derived from published literature and the ADJUST-PE study, and costs from US estimates. The time horizon was lifetime, with a health care system perspective.

RESULTS

Using the AADD cutoff, compared with the standard cutoff, was associated with a loss of 0.0001 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and an average cost reduction of $33.4. The decremental cost-effectiveness ratio (DCER) was +$282 881/lost QALY (95% confidence interval from +$43 209/lost QALY to a dominant strategy). The probability that the use of the AADD cutoff was either dominant or gained >$200 000/lost QALY was 79.4%. In sensitivity analyses, the DCER became <+$200 000/lost QALY only if, among patients with D-dimer below the AADD cutoff, the mortality of an undiagnosed PE was >6% or the prevalence of PE was >0.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The AADD cutoff results in a clinically nonsignificant decrease in QALY but important costs reductions. It is a decrementally cost-effective innovation, with a potential of cost savings of >$80 million per year for the United States health care system.

Collapse

Key Words

• biomarker
• cost-benefit analysis
• diagnosis
• fibrin fragment D
• pulmonary embolism

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Angiography
• Cost-Benefit Analysis
• Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products
• Humans
• Pulmonary Embolism/diagnosis

Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Marc Blondon Division of Angiology and Haemostasis, Faculty of Medicine and Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
Gregoire Le Gal Department of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada
Guy Meyer Department of Respiratory Disease, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, APHP, Paris, France Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
Marc Righini Division of Angiology and Haemostasis, Faculty of Medicine and Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
Helia Robert-Ebadi Division of Angiology and Haemostasis, Faculty of Medicine and Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

Collapse

Cost comparison of continued anticoagulation with rivaroxaban versus placebo based on the 1-year EINSTEIN-Extension trial efficacy and safety results

AIMS

The EINSTEIN-Extension trial (EINSTEIN-EXT) found that continued treatment with rivaroxaban for an additional 6 or 12 months (vs placebo) after 6-12 months of initial anticoagulation significantly reduced the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) with a small non-significant increased risk of major bleeding (none fatal or in critical site). This study aimed to compare total healthcare cost between rivaroxaban and placebo, based on the EINSTEIN-EXT event rates.

METHODS

Total healthcare cost was calculated as the sum of treatment and clinical event costs from a US managed care perspective. Treatment duration and event rates were obtained from the EINSTEIN-EXT study. Adjustment on treatment duration was made by assuming a 10% non-adherence rate. Drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Cost estimates for clinical events (i.e. recurrent deep vein thrombosis [DVT], recurrent pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding) were determined from the literature. Results were examined over a ±20% range of each cost component and over 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of event rate differences in deterministic (one-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

RESULTS

Total healthcare cost was $1,454 lower for rivaroxaban-treated (vs placebo-treated) patients in the base-case, with a lower clinical event cost fully offsetting drug cost. The cost savings of recurrent DVT alone (-$3,102) was greater than drug cost ($2,723). Total healthcare cost remained lower for rivaroxaban in the majority (73%) of PSA (cost difference [95% CI] = -$1,454 [-$2,396, $1,231]).

LIMITATIONS

This study was conducted over the 1-year observation period of the EINSTEIN-EXT trial, which limited "real-world" applicability and examination of long-term economic impact. Assumptions on drug and clinical event costs were US-based and, thus, not applicable to other healthcare systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Total healthcare costs were estimated to be lower for patients continuing rivaroxaban therapy compared to those receiving placebo in VTE patients who had completed 6-12 months of VTE treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban for Treatment of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism in Greece

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprising deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a major healthcare concern that results in substantial morbidity and mortality with great economic burden for healthcare systems. Hence, the need for effective and efficient treatment of patients with VTE is important for both clinical and economic reasons. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared to standard of care (SoC) with enoxaparin followed by dose-adjusted vitamin-K antagonists for the treatment of DVT and PE in Greece.

METHODS

An existing Markov model was locally adapted from a third-party payer perspective to reflect the management and complications of DVT and PE in the course of 3-month cycles, up to death. The clinical inputs and utility values were extracted from published studies. Direct medical costs, obtained from local resources, were incorporated in the model and refer to year 2017. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was carried out to deal with uncertainty.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis showed that rivaroxaban in 3- and 6-month treatment duration for DVT and PE, respectively, as this is the common clinical practice in Greece, was associated with a 0.02 and 0.01 increment in QALYs compared to SoC, respectively. Rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced total cost in DVT (€85) but with an additional total cost in PE (€2) compared to SoC. Therefore, rivaroxaban was a dominant (less costly, more effective) and cost-effective (ICER: €177) alternative over SoC for the management of DVT and PE, respectively. PSA revealed that the probability of rivaroxaban being cost effective at a threshold of €34,000 per QALY gained was 99% and 81% for DVT and PE, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban may represent a cost-effective option relative to SoC for the management of DVT and PE in Greece.

Intermittent pneumatic compression is a cost-effective method of orthopedic postsurgical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major complication after lower-limb arthroplasty that increases costs and reduces patient’s quality of life. Using anticoagulants for 10–35 days following arthroplasty is the standard prophylaxis, but its cost-effectiveness after accounting for bleeding complications remains unproven.

Methods

A comprehensive, clinical model of VTE was created using the incidences, clinical effects (including bleeding), and costs of VTE and prophylaxis from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and large observational studies. Over 50 years, the total health care costs and clinical impact of three prophylaxis strategies, that are as follows, were compared: low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) alone, intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), and IPC with LMWH (IPC+LMWH). The cost per VTE event that was avoided and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in both the US and Australian health care settings were calculated.

Results

For every 2,000 patients, the expected number of VTE and major bleeding events with LMWH were 151 and 6 in the USA and 160 and 46 in Australia, resulting in a mean of 11.3 and 9.1 QALYs per patient, respectively. IPC reduced the expected VTE events by 11 and 8 in the USA and Australia, respectively, compared to using LMWH alone. IPC reduced major bleeding events compared to LMWH, preventing 1 event in the US and 7 in Australia. IPC+LMWH only reduced VTE events. Neither intervention substantially impacted QALYs but both increased QALYs versus LMWH. IPC was cost-effective followed by IPC+LMWH.

Conclusion

IPC and IPC+LMWH are cost-effective versus LMWH after lower-limb arthroplasty in the USA and Australia. The choice between IPC and IPC+LMWH depends on expected bleeding risks.

Secondary prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism after initial oral anticoagulation therapy in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Currently, little evidence is available on the length and type of anticoagulation used for extended treatment for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with unprovoked VTE who have completed initial oral anticoagulation therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of available oral therapeutic options (aspirin, warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)) for extended thromboprophylaxis in adults with a first unprovoked VTE, to prevent VTE recurrence after completion of an acceptable initial oral anticoagulant treatment period, as defined in individual studies.

SEARCH METHODS

For this review, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (March 2017) as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2). We also searched trials registries (March 2017) and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in which patients with a first, symptomatic, objectively confirmed, unprovoked VTE, who had been initially treated with anticoagulants, were randomised to extended prophylaxis (vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), antiplatelet agents, or DOACs) versus no prophylaxis or placebo. We also included trials that compared one type of extended prophylaxis versus another type of extended prophylaxis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed quality, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies with a combined total of 3436 participants met the inclusion criteria. Five studies compared extended prophylaxis versus placebo: three compared warfarin versus placebo, and two compared aspirin versus placebo. One study compared one type of extended prophylaxis (rivaroxaban) versus another type of extended prophylaxis (aspirin). For extended prophylaxis versus placebo, we downgraded the quality of the evidence for recurrent VTE and all-cause mortality to moderate owing to concerns arising from risks of selection and performance bias in individual studies. For all other outcomes in this review, we downgraded the quality of the evidence to low owing to concerns arising from risk of bias for the studies stated above, combined with concerns over imprecision. For extended prophylaxis versus other extended prophylaxis, we downgraded the quality of the evidence for recurrent VTE and major bleeding to moderate owing to concerns over imprecision. Risk of bias in the individual study was low.Meta-analysis showed that extended prophylaxis was no more effective than placebo in preventing VTE-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 6.98; 1862 participants; 4 studies; P = 0.98; low-quality evidence), recurrent VTE (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.03; 2043 participants; 5 studies; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence), major bleeding (OR 1.84, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.85; 2043 participants; 5 studies; P = 0.86; low-quality evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.57; 2043 participants; 5 studies; P = 0.99; moderate-quality evidence), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 5.33; 1672 participants; 4 studies; P = 0.30; low-quality evidence), stroke (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.46; 1224 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.80; low-quality evidence), or myocardial infarction (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.87; 1495 participants; 3 studies; P = 1.00; low-quality evidence).One study showed that the novel oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban was associated with fewer recurrent VTEs than aspirin (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.54; 1389 participants; P = 0.0001; moderate-quality evidence). Data show no clear differences in the incidence of major bleeding between rivaroxaban and aspirin (OR 3.06, 95% CI 0.37 to 25.51; 1389 participants; P = 0.30; moderate-quality evidence) nor in the incidence of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.94; 1389 participants; 1 study; P = 0.69; moderate-quality evidence). Data on VTE-related mortality, all-cause mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction were not yet available for participants with unprovoked VTE and will be incorporated in future versions of the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is currently insufficient to permit definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness and safety of extended thromboprophylaxis in prevention of recurrent VTE after initial oral anticoagulation therapy among participants with unprovoked VTE. Additional good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be reached.

The cost-utility of dabigatran etexilate compared with warfarin in treatment and extended anticoagulation of acute VTE in the UK

The relative efficacy and safety of dabigatran etexilate and warfarin have been evaluated in two head-to-head, phase III, treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) trials, and one extended prophylaxis trial, in patients with high risk of recurrent VTE. Dabigatran etexilate demonstrated similar efficacy to warfarin, and was associated with a reduced risk of major or clinically relevant bleeds. Based on results of these trials, and real-life disease prognosis following discontinuation of anticoagulation treatment, we evaluated the cost-utility of dabigatran etexilate compared with warfarin in six months anticoagulation, and in extended, up to 24 months anticoagulation, in patients with acute VTE, acute deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) or acute, symptomatic, pulmonary embolism (PE). Costs were analysed from the perspective of the National Health Services (NHS) and Public Social Services (PSS) in England and Wales. Outcomes were quantified in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The estimated incremental, lifetime cost/QALY gain following acute, symptomatic VTE (DVT or PE) was £1,252/QALY when dabigatran etexilate or warfarin were administered for up to six months treatment. In treatment of acute, symptomatic PE and in DVT respective ratios were £1,767/QALY and £1,075/QALY. In extended, up to 24 months anticoagulation, dabigatran etexilate projected costs/QALY of £8,242/QALY, when compared with warfarin. Results obtained herein were robust across a number of sensitivity analyses and suggest dabigatran etexilate to be a cost-effective alternative to current standard of care when evaluated in six months treatment and in extended anticoagulation following acute VTE (DVT and/or PE).

Benefit–risk profile of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in the management of venous thromboembolism

The prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a clinical challenge, primarily owing to drawbacks associated with the use of heparins and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). These and other factors, including a growing elderly population, mean that VTE presents a continuing burden to patients and physicians. Anticoagulant therapy is a fundamental approach for VTE management. Non- VKA oral anticoagulants, including the factor Xa inhibitors apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban, and the thrombin inhibitor dabigatran, have been studied in phase III trials across a spectrum of thromboembolic disorders. These agents offer simplified care, with similar or improved efficacy and safety outcomes compared with heparins and vitamin K antagonists. There are several factors a physician must consider when prescribing an anticoagulant. An important consideration with all anticoagulant use is bleeding risk, especially in high-risk groups such as the elderly or those with renal impairment or cancer. In orthopaedic patients, other risks include a need for surgical revision or blood transfusion, or wound complications. Therefore, the clinical benefits of an anticoagulant should ideally be balanced with any risks associated with the therapy. Quantitative benefit–risk assessments are lacking, and owing to differences in trial design the non-VKA oral anticoagulants cannot be compared directly. Based on trial and “reallife” data, this review will summarise the clinical data for the non-VKA oral anticoagulants in the prevention and treatment of VTE, focusing on the balance between the benefits and risks of anticoagulation with these drugs, and their potential impact on VTE management.

Rivaroxaban vs. warfarin on extended deep venous thromboembolism treatment: A cost analysis

Background

Standard treatment for deep venous thromboembolism involves parenteral anticoagulation overlapping with a vitamin K antagonist, an approach that is effective but associated with limitations including the need for frequent coagulation monitoring. The direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban is similarly effective to standard therapy as a single-drug treatment for venous thromboembolism and does not require routine coagulation monitoring. The aim of this analysis was to project the long-term costs and outcomes for rivaroxaban compared to standard of care (tinzaparin/warfarin).

Methods

A total of 184 patients who were under anticoagulant therapy with warfarin or rivaroxaban for extended deep venous thromboembolism were retrospectively evaluated; 59 received rivaroxaban and 125 received warfarin therapy. Assessments were made on age, gender, place of residence, the duration of anticoagulation, mean international normalized ratio value, the effective rate of international normalized ratio (time in the therapeutic range), bleeding-related complication rate, duration of hospitalization due to complications, the number of annual outpatient department admission, cost for drug, cost for hospitalization, cost for outpatient department admission and international normalized ratio measurements.

Results

The annual outpatient cost is higher in warfarin group (147.09 ± 78 vs. 62.32 ± 19.79 USD p < 0.001). But annual drug cost is higher in rivaroxaban group (362.6 vs. 71.55 ± 31.01 USD p < 0.001). Overall cost of rivaroxaban group is higher than warfarin group (476.25 ± 36.78 vs. 364.82 ± 174.44 USD). Warfarin is not cost-effective when non-drug costs (342.5 ± 174.44 vs. 113.65 ± 36.77) and hospital costs (173.85 ± 122.73 vs. 64.9 ± 23.55 USD) were analyzed.

Conclusion

This analysis suggests that rivaroxaban has lower costs than warfarin in terms of outpatient department admission and hospital costs due to complications; however, warfarin was more economic when all cost parameters were considered. Time in the therapeutic range was found as 56% for warfarin that should be taken into account while analyzing costs and benefits.

Cost-effectiveness of Apixaban Versus Other Oral Anticoagulants for the Initial Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism and Prevention of Recurrence

PURPOSE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus rivaroxaban, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)/dabigatran, and LMWH/vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for the initial treatment and prevention of recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE).

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic effect of 6 months of treatment with apixaban versus other anticoagulants over a lifetime horizon. Network meta-analyses were conducted using the results of the Apixaban after the Initial Management of Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis with First-Line Therapy (AMPLIFY), EINSTEIN-pooled, and RE-COVER I and II trials for the following end points: recurrent VTE, major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and treatment discontinuations. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Service. The outcomes evaluated were the number of events avoided in a 1000-patient cohort, total costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost per QALY gained over a patient's lifetime.

FINDINGS

Treatment for 6 months with apixaban was projected to result in fewer recurrent VTE and bleeding events in comparison to rivaroxaban, LMWH/dabigatran, and LMWH/VKA. Apixaban was cost-effective compared with LMWH/VKA at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2520 per QALY gained and was a dominant (ie, lower costs and higher QALYs) alternative to either rivaroxaban or LMWH/dabigatran. Sensitivity analysis indicated that results were robust over a wide range of inputs.

IMPLICATIONS

The assessment of the effects and costs of apixaban in this study predicted that apixaban is a dominant alternative to rivaroxaban and LMWH/dabigatran and a cost-effective alternative to LMWH/VKA for 6 months of treatment of VTE and the prevention of recurrence.

Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism based on the Hokusai-VTE study

OBJECTIVE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with almost 300,000 deaths per year in the United States. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) offer an alternative to warfarin-based therapy without monitoring requirements and with fewer drug and food interactions. Edoxaban, a direct Xa inhibitor, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), based upon results of the Hokusai-VTE Phase 3 trial. The trial demonstrated that edoxaban administered once daily after initial treatment with heparin was non-inferior in reducing the risk of VTE recurrence and caused significantly less major and clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding compared to warfarin. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of adults with VTE.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was developed using patient-level data from the Hokusai-VTE trial, clinical event costs from real-world databases, and drug acquisition costs for warfarin of $0.36 and edoxaban of $9.24 per tablet.

RESULTS

From a U.S. health-care delivery system perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $22,057 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that edoxaban had an ICER <$50,000 per QALY gained relative to warfarin in 67% of model simulations. The result was robust to variation in key model parameters including the cost and disutility of warfarin monitoring.

CONCLUSION

Despite its higher drug acquisition cost, edoxaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin for the treatment of VTE.