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).

Prophylactic Efficacy and Safety of Antithrombotic Regimens in Patients with Stable Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (S-ASCVD): A Bayesian Network Meta-Regression Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antithrombotic regimens and their combinations in preventing thrombotic incidents in patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (S-ASCVD).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. The primary comprehensive endpoint was a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, while the secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and all-cause death. The safety endpoint was major bleeding. Bayesian network meta-regression analysis in R software was used to calculate the final effect size and to correct for the effect of follow-up time on the outcome effect size.

RESULTS

Twelve studies reporting 122,190 patients with eight antithrombotic regimens were included in this systematic review. For the primary composite endpoint, low-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel 75 mg (hazard ratio [HR] 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.87) and low-dose aspirin plus rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34-0.82) showed significantly better efficacy than clopidogrel monotherapy, and the efficacy was comparable among the first two regimens. Unfortunately, none of the active regimens significantly decreased all-cause death, cardiovascular death branch, and all-cause stroke as part of the secondary endpoints. Low-dose aspirin plus ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94) and low-dose aspirin plus ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74-0.95) had a significant advantage in myocardial infarction compared with low-dose aspirin monotherapy, while low-dose aspirin plus 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.94) was better than low-dose aspirin in the treatment of ischemic stroke. In the major bleeding branch, low-dose aspirin plus ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.70-2.90), low-dose aspirin plus ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.70-2.60), low-dose aspirin plus rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.30-2.00), and rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.20-1.90) showed higher major bleeding risk compared with low-dose aspirin.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering MACEs, myocardial infarction, all kinds of stroke, ischemic stroke, and major bleeding, low-dose aspirin plus rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily should be considered the preferred regimen for S-ASCVD patients with low bleeding risk.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for peripheral artery disease in patients with coronary artery disease in China: A Markov model

BACKGROUND

The innovative pharmacological combination of low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin provides clinicians with an ideal opportunity to intensify the medical treatment of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and comorbid peripheral artery disease (PAD). We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of PAD screening using the ankle-brachial index (ABI) test in patients with CAD (with rivaroxaban administered if the PAD screening was positive) compared with no-screening strategy in China.

METHODS

A Markov decision model using a 1-month cycle was developed to simulate the 25-year effectiveness and cost of PAD screening on 75-year-old patients with CAD in China, evaluating the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of variations in the key parameters for ICERs.

RESULTS

Our model found an incremental cost of RMB4,959 (US$740) and an incremental QALY of 0.054 after one-time ABI screening, leading to an ICER of RMB91,936 (US$13,717) per QALY gained over a 25-year period. The reduction in all-cause mortality related to rivaroxaban and its cost were the factors most affecting the ICER. The screening would become cost-effective by decreasing the monthly cost of rivaroxaban to RMB184.5 (US$27.5) or by using domestic-brand rivaroxaban according to the threshold of a willingness to pay RMB72,447 (US$10,809) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that ABI screening for PAD to decide on low-dose rivaroxaban administration was not cost-effective for patients with CAD in China. Nevertheless, policy-guided cost changes for domestic-brand rivaroxaban could easily resolve this issue.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring system in people with type 1 diabetes in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) allows patients with diabetes to adjust insulin dosing, potentially improving glucose control. This study aimed to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 rt-CGM device versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) in Australia in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Long-term costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using the CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical input data for the analysis of rt-CGM versus SMBG and FGM were sourced from the DIAMOND study and a network meta-analysis, respectively. Rt-CGM and FGM were associated with quality of life (QoL) benefits due to reduced fear of hypoglycaemia (FoH) and fingerstick testing. Analyses were performed over a lifetime time horizon from an Australian healthcare payer perspective, including direct costs from published data. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum.

RESULTS

Rt-CGM was associated with an increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.199 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), increased mean total lifetime costs of AUD 21,596 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AUD 18,020 per QALY gained compared with SMBG. Compared with FGM, rt-CGM was associated with an increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.569 QALYs, increased mean total lifetime costs of AUD 11,064 and an ICER of AUD 19,455 per QALY gained. Key drivers of outcomes included HbA_1c benefits and QoL benefits associated with reduced FoH and fingerstick testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to improved clinical outcomes and QoL gains rt-CGM is highly cost-effective compared with SMBG and FGM in people with T1D in Australia.

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.

Long-term residual cardiovascular risk after acute coronary syndrome: antithrombotic treatment options

The residual risk of patients surviving until 1 year after acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is still high, despite secondary prevention. The cornerstone of treatment of patients with ACS is dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of low-dose aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor) for 12 months, or less in those patients at higher risk for bleeding. To reduce the residual risk beyond 1 year in those patients not at high bleeding risk who tolerated DAPT and did not suffer an (ischaemic or bleeding) event would intuitively mean to prolong DAPT. However, prolonged DAPT always comes at the cost of more bleeding. Therefore, assessing both ischaemic and bleeding risk in these patients at 1 year after ACS is crucial. In addition, another antithrombotic treatment consisting of low-dose rivaroxaban combined with low-dose aspirin has been shown to reduce ischaemic events. In this review, we describe residual thrombotic risk at 1 year after ACS, evaluate the evidence for antithrombotic options beyond 1 year and provide a practical guide to determine which patients would benefit the most from these therapies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ankle-brachial index screening in patients with coronary artery disease to optimize medical management

INTRODUCTION

Screening for peripheral artery disease (PAD) with the ankle-brachial index (ABI) test is currently not recommended in the general population; however, previous studies advocate screening in high-risk populations. Although providers may be hesitant to prescribe low-dose rivaroxaban to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) alone, given the reduction in cardiovascular events and death associated with rivaroxaban, screening for PAD with the ABI test and accordingly prescribing rivaroxaban may provide additional benefits. We sought to describe the cost-effectiveness of screening for PAD in patients with CAD to optimize this high-risk populations' medical management.

METHODS

We used a Markov model to evaluate the ABI test in patients with CAD. We assumed that all patients screened would be candidates for low-dose rivaroxaban. We assessed the cost of ABI screening at $100 per patient and added additional charges for physician visits ($100) and rivaroxaban cost ($470 per month). We used a 30-day cycle and performed analysis over 35 years. We evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from previous studies and determined the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) according to our model. We performed a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of variables with uncertainty and reported them in a Tornado diagram showing the variables with the greatest effect on the ICER.

RESULTS

Our model estimates decision costs to screen or not screen at $94,953 and $82,553, respectively. The QALYs gained from screening was 0.060, generating an ICER of $207,491 per QALY. Factors most influential on the ICER were the reduction in all-cause mortality associated with rivaroxaban and the prohibitively high cost of rivaroxaban. If rivaroxaban cost less than $95 per month, this would make screening cost-effective based on a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our model, screening patients with CAD for PAD to start low-dose rivaroxaban is not currently cost-effective due to insufficient reduction in all-cause mortality and high medication costs. Nevertheless, vascular surgeons have a unique opportunity to prescribe or advocate for low-dose rivaroxaban in patients with PAD to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

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.

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.

Reducing residual thrombotic risk in patients with peripheral artery disease: impact of the COMPASS trial

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at a high risk not only for the classical cardiovascular (CV) outcomes (major adverse cardiovascular events; MACE) but also for vascular limb events (major adverse limb events; MALE). Therefore, a comprehensive approach for these patients should include both goals. However, the traditional antithrombotic approach with only antiplatelet agents (single or dual antiplatelet therapy) does not sufficiently reduce the risk of recurrent thrombotic events. Importantly, the underlying cause of atherosclerosis in patients with PAD implies both platelet activation and the initiation and promotion of coagulation cascade, in which Factor Xa plays a key role. Therefore, to reduce residual vascular risk, it is necessary to address both targets. In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial that included patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, the rivaroxaban plus aspirin strategy (versus aspirin) markedly reduced the risk of both CV and limb outcomes, and related complications, with a good safety profile. In fact, the net clinical benefit outcome composed of MACE; MALE, including major amputation, and fatal or critical organ bleeding was significantly reduced by 28% with the COMPASS strategy, (hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.87). Therefore, the rivaroxaban plus aspirin approach provides comprehensive protection and should be considered for most patients with PAD at high risk of such events.

Update on cardiovascular prevention in clinical practice: A position paper of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology

European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention in clinical practice were first published in 1994 and have been regularly updated, most recently in 2016, by the Sixth European Joint Task Force. Given the amount of new information that has become available since then, components from the task force and experts from the European Association of Preventive Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology were invited to provide a summary and critical review of the most important new studies and evidence since the latest guidelines were published. The structure of the document follows that of the previous document and has six parts: Introduction (epidemiology and cost effectiveness); Cardiovascular risk; How to intervene at the population level; How to intervene at the individual level; Disease-specific interventions; and Settings: where to intervene? In fact, in keeping with the guidelines, greater emphasis has been put on a population-based approach and on disease-specific interventions, avoiding re-interpretation of information already and previously considered. Finally, the presence of several gaps in the knowledge is highlighted.