An indirect comparison, via enoxaparin, of rivaroxaban with dabigatran in the prevention of venous thromboembolism after hip or knee replacement

Comparison of efficiency and safety of rivaroxaban, apixaban and enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after arthroplastic surgery: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, apixaban and enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after arthroplastic surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis containing a wide range of randomized controlled trials about efficiency and safety of rivaroxaban, apixaban and enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after arthroplastic surgery in the recent decade from January 2006 to June 2018. The present study separately analyzed the following key components: the different efficiency and safety for rivaroxaban and enoxaparin; apixaban and enoxaparin; and enoxaparin and other new developed anticoagulants.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies containing 58885 patients were included. In results of efficacy outcomes, total events occurred in 4.89% patients of rivaroxaban group and 9.55% patients of the control group; however, no significant difference was observed in apixaban groups of their efficacy outcomes. Primary events didn't show significant difference when comparing apixaban with the control or comparing enoxaparin with the control. In analysis of safety outcomes, bleeding events occurred in 3.41% patients of rivaroxaban group compared with 2.84% patients of the control groups; bleeding events in apixaban groups were 4.09% compared with the control groups 4.64%. Bleeding events occurred in 3.51% patients of enoxaparin group, slightly lower than 5.82% of the control group.

CONCLUSION

Direct oral anticoagulant, rivaroxaban might have better efficacy outcomes in thromboprophylaxis after arthroplastic surgery; however, apixaban showed no significantly different efficacy outcomes compared with enoxaparin, and enoxaparin may have equal or even better safety outcomes compared with direct oral anticoagulants.

Klinische Studien zu neuen direkten oralen Antikoagulanzien

Um die Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit neuer direkter oraler Antikoagulanzien (DOAK) zu vergleichen, müssten idealerweise eine direkte Gegenüberstellung der Substanzen in klinischen Studien durchgeführt werden. Auf Grund des logistischen und finanziellen Aufwandes wird dies aber in absehbarer Zeit nicht geschehen. Indirekte Vergleiche, auch Netzwerkanalysen (NMA) genannt, lassen sich mit den vorliegenden Studien zwischen den DOAKs vornehmen. In der postoperativen Phase nach Knie- und Hüftgelenkersatz und bei Patienten mit Vorhofflimmern sind derzeit diese Vergleich möglich. Indirekte Vergleiche sind jedoch auch mit Einschränkungen behaftet.

Diese Arbeit gibt eine Übersicht der aktuell vorliegenden NMAs und versucht, deren Ergebnisse mit der Pharmakologie der DOAKs und den methodischen Problemen von NMAs zu beleuchten.

Interpretation of endpoints in a network meta-analysis of new oral anticoagulants following total hip or total knee replacement surgery

New oral anticoagulant (NOAC) regimens [dabigatran 150 mg (D150) and 220 mg (D220), rivaroxaban 10 mg (R20), and apixaban 2.5 mg bid (A5)] were effective and safe compared to enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following elective total knee (TKR) or hip replacement (THR) surgery. First a cluster analysis was used to identify homogeneous studies for the trial programs of each NOAC. Second, only studies reporting VTE and VTE-related death, major bleeding, and mortality were included. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each NOAC regimen versus the comparator. Third, these data were used for the indirect comparison between NOACs. Cluster analysis identified duration of treatment (10 ± 5 and 34 ± 5 days) as the only homogeneous parameter across all NOAC programs (p>0.05) except for A5 and VTE over 10 ± 5 days (analysis not performed). The results of the calculated OR and 95% CI of the four NOAC regimens over 10 ± 5 and 34 ± 5 days showed inferiority of D150 and D220 compared to R10 for VTE (p<0.01, p<0.001). Comparisons of major bleeding and mortality were not different for all indirect comparisons. Despite the lack of standard definitions for VTE and bleeding outcomes, cluster analysis seems to be an appropriate tool to identify homogeneity across trial programs and to perform an indirect comparison for NOACs for prevention of VTE following TKR and THR surgery.

Comparison of cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation with dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation across countries

We did a cost-utility analysis for the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in the German population based on the quality-adjusted life years (QALY), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). The aim of our investigation was to examine cost-utility for current German drug market costs and compared to other countries. Outcome data were taken from dabigatran's RE-LY, rivaroxaban's ROCKET AF, and apixaban's ARISTOTLE trials. A Markov decision model, the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), and further sensitivity analyses were used to simulate comparisons between NOACs over a follow up period of 20 years. The main perspective used for the analyses is from a German public health care insurance perspective. The base-case analyses of a 65 years old person with a CHADS2 score >1 resulted in 7.56-7.64 QALYs gained for warfarin. NOACs added 0.04-0.19 QALYs. Total costs for warfarin ranged from 7622 to 9069<euro> and for NOACs from 19537 to 20048<euro>. The sensitivity analysis indicated that current German market costs for the NOACs exceed a willingness-to-pay threshold of (hypothetical) 50000<euro>/QALY in all treatment regimen. The MCS showed willingness-to-pay thresholds from 60500<euro>/QALY for apixaban to 278000<euro>/QALY for dabigatran 110 mg bid, with values for dabigatran 150 mg bid and rivaroxaban in between. In conclusion, from a German public health care insurance perspective current market costs are high in relation to the quality of life gained. These results from clinical studies (efficacy) remain to be confirmed under real life conditions (effectiveness).

Cost-effectiveness impact of rivaroxaban versus new and existing prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee replacement surgery in France, Italy and Spain

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) has a significant impact on healthcare costs but is largely preventable with anticoagulant prophylaxis using low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs), such as enoxaparin or dalteparin. Rivaroxaban and dabigatran etexilate are two new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) both compared with enoxaparin in separate trials. A decision analytic model with a healthcare and national payer perspective over a five-year time horizon was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the NOACs for VTE prophylaxis after total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) in France, Italy and Spain. Efficacy and safety data were obtained from randomised controlled trials of rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin and an indirect statistical comparison for rivaroxaban vs dabigatran. Rivaroxaban demonstrated dominance across all comparisons, indications and countries. In THR, total per-patient costs were reduced by up to €160 in the enoxaparin comparison and €115 in the dabigatran comparison, respectively. In addition, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were increased by up to 0.0011 and 0.0012 in each comparison, respectively. Similarly, total costs were reduced in TKR by up to €137 and €28 in the enoxaparin and dabigatran comparisons, respectively. The total number of QALYs was increased by up to 0.0014 in the enoxaparin comparison and 0.0005 in the dabigatran comparison. The results were driven by costs since the incremental benefits were minimal. Rivaroxaban use could result in substantial healthcare cost savings and improved quality of life. The results are applicable across three European countries with differing healthcare systems so, potentially, could be generalised to a much wider population.

Clinical trials with new oral anticoagulants. Additive value of indirect comparisons also named network meta-analyses

To compare the efficacy and safety of the new oral anticoagulants (NOAC), ideally head-to-head clinical trials should be performed. Given the expense of such an undertaking, it is highly unlikely that such a comparison would be performed. Therefore, there is a need for an unbiased comparative assessment of the benefits and risks of the NOACs, based on the available trial data. Indirect or mixed treatment comparisons may be an useful tool to overcome these limitations also known as network meta-analysis (NMA). The aim of this paper is to give an overview on published NMAs for dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban, each assessed against warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation, and against enoxaparin in patients undergoing total knee and total hip replacement surgery, in order to obtain insights into the comparability of the adopted methodological techniques.

Postoperative thromboembolic prophylaxis in joint replacement surgery: Guidelines and daily practice

This is a commentary discussing the article published in Thrombosis Journal by Subramanian et al. [Thrombosis Journal 2012, 10:15].

Venous thromboembolism: annualised United States models for total, hospital-acquired and preventable costs utilising long-term attack rates

Healthcare reform is upon the United States (US) healthcare system. Prioritisation of preventative efforts will guide necessary transitions within the US healthcare system. While annual deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) costs have recently been defined at the US national level, annual pulmonary embolism (PE) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) costs have not yet been defined. A decision tree and cost model were developed to estimate US health care costs for total PE, total hospital-acquired PE, and total hospital-acquired "preventable" PE. The previously published DVT cost model was modified, updated and combined with the PE cost model to elucidate the same three categories of costs for VTE. Direct and indirect costs were also delineated. For VTE in the base model, annual cost ranges in 2011 US dollars for total, hospital- acquired, and hospital-acquired "preventable" costs and were $13.5-$27.2, $9.0-$18.2, and $4.5-$14.2 billion, respectively. The first sensitivity analysis, with higher incidence rates and costs, demonstrated annual US total, hospital-acquired, and hospital-acquired "preventable" VTE costs ranging from $32.1-$69.3, $23.7-$51.5, and $11.9-$39.3 billion, respectively. The second sensitivity analysis with long-term attack rates (LTAR) for recurrent events and post-thrombotic syndrome and chronic pulmonary thromboembolic hypertension demonstrated annual US total, hospital-acquired, and hospital-acquired "preventable" VTE costs ranging from $15.4-$34.4, $10.3-$25.4, and $5.1-$19.1 billion, respectively. PE costs comprised a majority of the VTE costs. Prioritisation of effective VTE preventative strategies will reduce significant costs, morbidity and mortality within the US healthcare system. The cost models may be utilised to estimate other countries' costs or VTE-specific disease states.