Health economic evaluation of rivaroxaban in the treatment of patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease

Polypill versus medication monotherapy in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases in Iran: An economic evaluation study

Background and Aims

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are one of the major diseases in developing and developed countries and have high prevalence and mortality rates. Pharmacological interventions, especially the use of combination medications, can have preventive effects in patients with CVDs. Recently, in the PolyIran trial, a combination of atorvastatin, hydrochlorothiazide, aspirin, and valsartan or enalapril (Polypill) was shown to be effective in providing survival benefits as a primary prevention strategy. In the present study, we examine the cost-effectiveness of the use of polypill compared to its individual components (named as medication monotherapy) in the prevention of CVDs in Iran.

Methods

This was an economic evaluation study conducted to compare the cost-utility of polypill with that of medication monotherapy for 10,000 hypothetical cohorts of people over 35 years of age using the Markov model and with a lifetime horizon. The study perspective was patient perspective and direct medical costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were estimated. To deal with uncertaintysensitivity analyses were used.

Results

The results showed that polypill, with the lowest costs (871 USD) and highest QALYs (14.55), had the most cost-utility than medication monotherapy. Also, the results showed that the highest sensitivities were related to the utilities of angina and stroke states. At the 21,768 USD threshold, polypill had a 92% probability of being cost-effective versus other medications.

Conclusion

Considering that polypill had the most cost-utility, it is suggested that health system policymakers pay special attention to polypill in designing clinical guidelines. Also, through covering this medication by health insurance organizations, it is possible to complete the country's medicine pharmacopeia in preventing CVDs.

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.

Exercise Therapy in the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease

The incidence and prevalence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) are increasing globally and have a marked economic burden in the United States. The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines recommend exercise therapy as a Class 1A, but its utilization remains suboptimal. This state-of-the-art review aims to provide a comprehensive review of the most updated information available on PAD, along with its risk factors, management options, outcomes, economic burden, and the role of exercise therapy in managing PAD.

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).

Evaluation of Herb–Drug Interaction Between Danshen and Rivaroxaban in Rat and Human Liver Microsomes

The combination of Salvia miltiorrhiza (Danshen) and rivaroxaban is a promising treatment option in clinical practice in China, but the herb–drug interaction between Danshen and rivaroxaban remains unclear. Therefore, this study aims to reveal the interaction between Danshen and rivaroxaban. We not only investigated the inhibitory properties of Danshen tablet on rivaroxaban metabolism in rat and human liver microsomes but also evaluated the inhibitory effects of Danshen tablet and its eight active components (dihydrotanshinone I, tanshinone I, tanshinone IIA, cryptotanshinone, danshensu, salvianolic acid A, salvianolic acid B, and salvianolic acid C) on cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes. The results showed that Danshen tablet potently inhibited the metabolism of rivaroxaban in rat and human liver microsomes. In the CYP inhibition study, we found that dihydrotanshinone I, the active component of Danshen tablet, potently inhibited the activities of rat CYP3A and CYP2J, with IC₅₀ values at 13.85 and 6.39 μM, respectively. In further inhibition kinetic study, we found that Danshen tablet is a mixed inhibitor in rivaroxaban metabolism in rat and human liver microsomes, with the K_i value at 0.72 and 0.25 mg/ml, respectively. In conclusion, there is a potential interaction between Danshen tablet and rivaroxaban. Danshen tablet inhibits the metabolism of rivaroxaban, which may be because its lipid-soluble components such as dihydrotanshinone I strongly inhibit the activities of CYP enzymes, especially CYP3A and CYP2J. Therefore, when Danshen tablet and rivaroxaban are used simultaneously in the clinic, it is necessary to strengthen the drug monitoring of rivaroxaban and adjust the dosage.

Economic Analysis of the CADScor System for Ruling Out Coronary Artery Disease in England

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common type of heart and circulatory disease and is the leading cause of death worldwide. The current diagnostic pathway can lead to patient complications and is also extremely costly. A new medical device, the CADScor System (Acarix AB), was developed for the acoustic detection of CAD before patients undergo invasive diagnostic procedures.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to assess the cost utility of the CADScor System for the diagnosis of CAD at an early stage in the diagnostic testing pathway in England.

METHODS

A two-part economic model, consisting of a decision tree and Markov model, was developed to consider the cost utility (cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) of introducing the CADScor System for the diagnosis of CAD. The decision tree component explored the short-term costs and diagnostic outcomes associated with introduction of the test compared with the existing testing pathway. A Markov model was developed to explore the longer-term health and economic implications of the condition and original diagnosis, with costs and health effects estimated over different time horizons. Parameter uncertainty was explored in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Base-case results indicated that the CADScor System would result in cost savings (- £131 per patient) and a marginal increase in QALYs (0.00001) over a 1-year time horizon. Probabilistic results indicated that the intervention had a > 99% probability of being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained and 100% probability of being cost saving. Results from the deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that variations in parameters related to the accuracy and cost of the CADScor System, and the prevalence of CAD, had the greatest impact on the overall results. The overall cost saving was estimated to be over £12.3 million per 100,000 eligible patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

The CADScor System is a potentially cost-saving test for the diagnosis of CAD. When initiated before the use of non-invasive cardiac imaging tests such as computed tomography coronary angiography, the test reduced costs to the healthcare service over various time horizons.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of apixaban versus vitamin K antagonists for antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in Spain

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

AUGUSTUS trial demonstrated that, for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) having acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), an antithrombotic regimen with apixaban and P2Y12 resulted in less bleeding, fewer hospitalizations, and similar ischemic events than regimens including a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), aspirin, or both. This study objective was to evaluate long-term health and economic outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of apixaban over VKA, as a treatment option for patients with AF having ACS/PCI.

METHODS

A lifetime Markov cohort model was developed comparing apixaban versus VKA across multiple treatment strategies (triple [with P2Y12 + aspirin] or dual [with P2Y12] therapy followed by monotherapy [apixaban or VKA]; triple followed by dual and then monotherapy; dual followed by monotherapy). The model adopted the Spanish healthcare perspective, with a 3-month cycle length and costs and health outcomes discounted at 3%.

RESULTS

Treatment with apixaban resulted in total cost savings of €883 and higher life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) per patient than VKA (net difference, LYs: 0.13; QALYs: 0.11). Bleeding and ischemic events (per 100 patients) were lower with apixaban than VKA (net difference, -13.9 and -1.8, respectively). Incremental net monetary benefit for apixaban was €3,041, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, apixaban was dominant in the majority of simulations (92.6%), providing additional QALYs at lower costs than VKA.

CONCLUSIONS

Apixaban was a dominant treatment strategy than VKA from both the Spanish payer's and societal perspectives, regardless of treatment strategy considered.

Progress in aorta and peripheral cardiovascular disease research

Although coronavirus disease 2019 seems to be the leading topic in research number of outstanding studies have been published in the field of aorta and peripheral vascular diseases likely affecting our clinical practice in the near future. This review article highlights key research on vascular diseases published in 2020. Some studies have shed light in the pathophysiology of aortic aneurysm and dissection suggesting a potential role for kinase inhibitors as new therapeutic options. A first proteogenomic study on fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) revealed a promising novel disease gene and provided proof-of-concept for a protein/lipid-based FMD blood test. The role of NADPH oxidases in vascular physiology, and particularly endothelial cell differentiation, is highlighted with potential for cell therapy development. Imaging of vulnerable plaque has been an intense field of research. Features of plaque vulnerability on magnetic resonance imaging as an under-recognized cause of stroke are discussed. Major clinical trials on lower extremity peripheral artery disease have shown added benefit of dual antithrombotic (aspirin plus rivaroxaban) treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Compared with Aspirin Alone in Patients with Coronary and Peripheral Artery Diseases in Italy

BACKGROUND

Rivaroxaban is a selective inhibitor of coagulation factor Xa and its combination with aspirin showed better outcomes in the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular disease than aspirin alone.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis aimed to economically compare the cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily) with aspirin alone in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD) and related subgroups.

METHODS

The analysis simulates the perspective of the Italian National Healthcare Service and used a state-transition decision Markov model. Clinical efficacy data and health events risks were gathered from the COMPASS trial. Health outcomes and costs (in Euros) were evaluated over a lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Direct healthcare costs entered the analysis. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

For the CAD or PAD population, rivaroxaban plus aspirin was more effective and costly compared with aspirin alone. Incremental costs and efficacy produced an ICER of €16,522 per QALY gained. Analyses found similar trends for the PAD and CAD groups, with respective ICERs of €8003 and €18,599, while ICERs for the other groups were lower than €13,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSION

Compared with aspirin alone, rivaroxaban plus aspirin is cost effective in preventing recurrent cardiovascular events in all patients with CAD or PAD, from the Italian perspective. These results could help clinicians and decision makers to develop improved strategies for cardiovascular disease prevention.

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin in Obese and Overweight Patients With Vascular Disease in the COMPASS Trial

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants are administered in fixed doses irrespective of body weight, but guidelines recommend against their use in patients with extremes of body weight.

OBJECTIVES

This study determined the effects of dual-pathway inhibition antithrombotic regimen (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg/day) compared with aspirin Halone across a range of patient body mass indexes (BMIs) and body weights.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of the COMPASS (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People using Anticoagulation StrategieS) trial, which included patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease. Efficacy and safety outcomes were studied in relation to BMI: (normal 18.5 ≤BMI <25 kg/m², overweight 25 ≤BMI <30 kg/m², obese ≥30 kg/m²) and body weight (≤70 kg, 70 < weight ≤90 kg, and >90 kg; as well as ≤120 kg vs. >120 kg).

RESULTS

Among 27,395 randomized patients, 6,459 (24%) had normal BMI, 12,047 (44%) were overweight, and 8,701 (32%) were obese. The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin produced a consistent reduction in the primary outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, irrespective of BMI or body weight. For 18.5 ≤BMI <25 kg/m²: 3.5% vs. 5.0%; hazard ratio (HR): 0.73 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.58 to 0.90); 25 ≤ BMI <30 kg/m²: 4.3% vs. 5.1%; HR: 0.80 (95% CrI: 0.66 to 0.96); BMI ≥30 kg/m²: 4.2% vs. 6.1%; HR: 0.71 (95% CrI: 0.57 to 0.86). For body weight ≤70 kg: 4.1% vs. 5.3%; HR: 0.75 (95% CrI: 0.62 to 0.91); 70 < weight ≤90 kg: 4.1% vs. 5.3%; HR: 0.76 (95% CrI: 0.65 to 0.89); >90 kg: 4.2% vs. 5.7%; HR: 0.74 (95% CrI: 0.61 to 0.90). Effects on bleeding, mortality, and net clinical benefit were consistent irrespective of BMI or bodyweight.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of dual-pathway antithrombotic therapy are consistent irrespective of BMI or body weight, suggesting no need for dose adjustments in the ranges of weights and BMI of patients enrolled in the COMPASS trial. Further studies need to address this problem in relation to greater extremes of body weight. (Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease [COMPASS]; NCT01776424).

Residual risk reduction opportunities in patients with chronic coronary syndrome. Role of dual pathway inhibition

INTRODUCTION

In this review, the role of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin approach (dual pathway inhibition - DPI) in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) and to perform practical recommendations about its use was updated.

AREAS COVERED

The contents of this review were proposed in an expert meeting. To identify relevant articles, a systematic search of Medline/Embase was performed (to July 2019), using the key words 'rivaroxaban', 'vascular dose', 'COMPASS' and 'coronary artery disease' in the search strategy.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite current antithrombotic strategies (single/dual antiplatelet therapy) have decreased rates of recurrent cardiovascular events among patients with CCS, residual risk remains unacceptably high. The COMPASS trial showed in CCS patients that compared with aspirin 100 mg rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bid plus aspirin 100 mg reduced the risk of major cardiac events, cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality, without an increase of intracranial or fatal bleedings. Importantly, residual risk with the rivaroxaban plus aspirin approach was lower than with different dual antiplatelet therapy regimens. The rivaroxaban plus aspirin strategy is of particular benefit in patients with CCS and high-risk cardiovascular feature (i.e. ≥2 vascular beds, heart failure, renal insufficiency, peripheral artery disease, previous stroke or diabetes) and should be considered in these populations.

Clinical implications and cost-effectiveness analysis of rivaroxaban in patients with coronary artery disease or peripheral arterial disease in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at substantial risk of atherothrombotic events. The COMPASS trial showed that patients with stable CAD or PAD experienced significant benefits after treatment with rivaroxaban in combination with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. This paper aims to provide insight into the clinical and economic consequences of treatment with rivaroxaban from a Dutch societal perspective.

METHODS

The clinical and economic implications of rivaroxaban in terms of the number of events prevented, costs, the incremental cost per life-years gained (LYG), and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were determined based on a cost-effectiveness model for patients with stable CAD or PAD and in high-risk subgroups (i.e. patients with CAD and PAD, CAD and prior myocardial infarction and renal impairment, CAD and heart failure) using results from the Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial.

RESULTS

Patients treated with rivaroxaban have an expected increased discounted life expectancy of 0.67 years. In high-risk groups discounted incremental life expectancy ranged from 1.33 to 1.90 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the full COMPASS population was €9,760/LYG and €12,033/QALY, whereas, for high-risk subgroups of patients with underlying conditions, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from €2,966/LYG to €5,052/LYG and from €3,940/QALY to €6,815/QALY. Results from the sensitivity analyses revealed that the model results were robust to variations in single or multiple input parameters at once.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that rivaroxaban in combination with ASA is a cost-effective treatment option in stable CAD or PAD patients. Rivaroxaban in combination with ASA is even more cost-effective in high-risk subgroups.

Economic Implications of Preventing Major Cardiovascular and Limb Events with Rivaroxaban plus Aspirin in Patients with Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease in the United States

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) have increased risks for cardiovascular (CV)-related morbidity and mortality. In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) clinical trial of such patients, rivaroxaban plus aspirin demonstrated a significant reduction in major adverse CV events (MACE), a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, and CV death, and major adverse limb events (MALE), a composite of chronic and acute limb ischemia, and major amputation resulting from vascular events, versus aspirin alone.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the 1-year economic implications of preventing MACE and MALE with the use of rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone among patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD in a US commercial health plan.

METHOD

A cost-consequence model was developed to evaluate the economic impact of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in a hypothetical 1-million-member health plan. The model inputs were taken from the COMPASS study (ie, the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs aspirin), Optum Integrated Database (ie, the prevalence of chronic CAD and/or PAD, incidence rates, and healthcare costs of MACE, MALE, and major bleeding), and the RED BOOK (ie, wholesale drug acquisition costs). The cost inputs were in 2019 US dollars. One-way sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

A 1-year treatment with rivaroxaban plus aspirin resulted in reductions of MACE and MALE, which balance the increased risk for bleeding versus aspirin alone and indicate a net health benefit for this drug regimen. These reductions were achieved at an incremental per-member per-month (PMPM) cost of $0.16, mainly because of rivaroxaban's acquisition cost. In patients with ≥2 MACE or MALE risk factors, the incremental PMPM cost was $0.09, given the increased offset in rivaroxaban's acquisition cost by reduced rates of MACE or MALE.

CONCLUSIONS

In an era of emerging thrombocardiology, treatment with rivaroxaban plus aspirin offers an effective thrombotic risk management strategy for healthcare stakeholders in the management of chronic CAD and/or PAD. The contribution of rivaroxaban would be greater in patients with ≥2 risk factors for MACE or MALE.

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

PURPOSE

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 Taiwan setting.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov model to project the lifetime direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years of both therapies. Transitional probabilities were derived from the COMPASS trial, and the costs and utilities were obtained from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database and published studies. One-way, scenario, subgroup, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was presented as the outcome. The threshold of willingness-to-pay was set at US$76,368 (3 times the gross domestic product per capita of Taiwan). All analyses were operated by TreeAge 2019 and Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in the patients with stable cardiovascular diseases, coronary artery diseases, and peripheral artery diseases were US$83,459, US$69,852 and -US$13,823 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probabilities of cost-effectiveness for the regimen with rivaroxaban among those with cardiovascular diseases and coronary artery diseases were 44.1% and 65.3% at US$76,368.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is less likely to be a cost-effective alternative to aspirin in secondary prevention for the patients with stable cardiovascular diseases; however, among these patients, the regimen may have pharmacoeconomic incentives for the group merely having chronic coronary artery diseases from the Taiwan national payer's perspective. The pharmacoeconomic incentives are influenced by the drug price, event treatment fees, and willingness-to-pay threshold.

Eligibility for Low-Dose Rivaroxaban Based on the COMPASS Trial: Insights from the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System

INTRODUCTION

Low-dose rivaroxaban reduced major adverse cardiac and limb events among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease (ASCVD) in the COMPASS trial. The objective of our study was to evaluate the eligibility and budgetary impact of the COMPASS trial in a real-world population.

METHODS

The VA administrative and clinical databases were utilized to conduct a cross-sectional study to identify patients eligible for low-dose rivaroxaban receiving care at all 141 facilities between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015. Proportion of patients with stable ASCVD eligible for low-dose rivaroxaban and prevalence of multiple risk enrichment criteria among eligible patients. Pharmaceutical budgetary impact using VA pharmacy pricing. Chi-squared and Student's t tests were used to compare patients eligible versus ineligible patients.

RESULTS

From an initial cohort of 1,248,214 patients with ASCVD, 488,495 patients (39.1%) met trial eligibility criteria. Eligible patients were older (74.2 vs 64.5 years) with higher proportion of hypertension (84.1% vs 82.1%) and diabetes (46.2% vs 32.9) compared with ineligible patients (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). A median of 38.7% (IQR 4.6%) of total ASCVD patients per facility were rivaroxaban eligible. Estimated annual VA pharmacy budgetary impact would range from $0.47 billion to $1.88 billion for 25% to 100% treatment penetration. Annual facility level pharmaceutical budgetary impact would be a median of $12.3 million (IQR $8.0-$16.3 million) for treatment of all eligible patients. Among eligible patients, age greater than 65 years was the most common risk enrichment factor (86.9%). Prevalence of eligible patients with multiple enrichment factors varied from 34.2% (one factor) to 6.2% (four or more).

CONCLUSION

Over one third of patients with stable ASCVD may qualify for low-dose rivaroxaban within the VA. Additional studies are needed to understand eligibility in other populations and a formal cost-effectiveness analysis is warranted.

Rivaroxaban for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease

In the COMPASS trial, the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and low-dose aspirin 75-100 mg daily produced a net clinical benefit of 20% in patients with chronic atherosclerotic vascular disease because it reduced major adverse events by 24% and overall mortality by 18% despite an initial increase in major bleeding. In this paper, we examine the rationale for targeting coagulation factor Xa in patients with atherosclerosis, summarize the pharmacology of the 2.5-mg dose, review the trials that led to the approval of the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for the long-term management of patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease and discuss who would benefit the most. We also address the unresolved issues and challenges in the implementation of this therapy.