Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Ferrara P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8149345 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease and history of heart failure (HF) are at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. We explored the effects of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in these patients.MethodsThe COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) randomized 27 395 participants with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone, or aspirin 100 mg alone. Patients with New York Heart Association functional class III or IV HF or left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) <30% were excluded. The primary major adverse cardiovascular events outcome comprised cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding using modified International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Investigators recorded a history of HF and EF at baseline, if available. We examined the effects of rivaroxaban on major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding in patients with or without a history of HF and an EF <40% or ≥40% at baseline.ResultsOf the 5902 participants (22%) with a history of HF, 4971 (84%) had EF recorded at baseline, and 12% had EF <40%. Rivaroxaban and aspirin had similar relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with aspirin in participants with HF (5.5% versus 7.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86) and those without HF (3.8% versus 4.7%; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93; P for interaction 0.28) but larger absolute risk reduction in those with HF (HF absolute risk reduction 2.4%, number needed to treat=42; no HF absolute risk reduction 1.0%, number needed to treat=103). The primary major adverse cardiovascular events outcome was not statistically different between those with EF <40% (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55-1.42) and ≥40% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98; P for interaction 0.36). The excess hazard for major bleeding was not different in participants with HF (2.5% versus 1.8%; HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.88-2.09) than in those without HF (3.3% versus 1.9%; HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.45-2.21; P for interaction 0.26). There were no significant differences in the primary outcomes with rivaroxaban alone.ConclusionsIn patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease and a history of mild or moderate HF, combination rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone produces similar relative but larger absolute benefits than in those without HF.Clinical trial registrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Project description:BackgroundPatients 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.ObjectiveTo 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.MethodA 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsIn 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.

Project description:Importance:The effect of ticagrelor with or without aspirin on saphenous vein graft patency in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is unknown. Objective:To compare the effect of ticagrelor + aspirin or ticagrelor alone vs aspirin alone on saphenous vein graft patency 1 year after CABG. Design, Setting, and Participants:Randomized, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial among 6 tertiary hospitals in China. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 80 years with indications for elective CABG. Patients requiring urgent revascularization, concomitant cardiac surgery, dual antiplatelet or vitamin K antagonist therapy post-CABG, and who were at risk of serious bleeding were excluded. From July 2014 until November 2015, 1256 patients were identified and 500 were enrolled. Follow-up was completed in January 2017. Interventions:Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to start ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) + aspirin (100 mg once daily) (n = 168), ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) (n = 166), or aspirin (100 mg once daily) (n = 166) within 24 hours post-CABG. Neither patients nor treating physicians were blinded to allocation. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary outcome was saphenous vein graft patency 1 year after CABG (FitzGibbon grade A) adjudicated independently by a committee blinded to allocation. Saphenous vein graft patency was assessed by multislice computed tomographic angiography or coronary angiography. Results:Among 500 randomized patients (mean age, 63.6 years; women, 91 [18.2%]), 461 (92.2%) completed the trial. Saphenous vein graft patency rates 1 year post-CABG were 88.7% (432 of 487 vein grafts) with ticagrelor + aspirin; 82.8% (404 of 488 vein grafts) with ticagrelor alone; and 76.5% (371 of 485 vein grafts) with aspirin alone. The difference between ticagrelor + aspirin vs aspirin alone was statistically significant (12.2% [95% CI, 5.2% to 19.2%]; P < .001), whereas the difference between ticagrelor alone vs aspirin alone was not statistically significant (6.3% [95% CI, -1.1% to 13.7%]; P = .10). Five major bleeding episodes occurred during 1 year of follow-up (3 with ticagrelor + aspirin; 2 with ticagrelor alone). Conclusions and Relevance:Among patients undergoing elective CABG with saphenous vein grafting, ticagrelor + aspirin significantly increased graft patency after 1 year vs aspirin alone; there was no significant difference between ticagrelor alone and aspirin alone. Further research with more patients is needed to assess comparative bleeding risks. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02201771.

Project description:ObjectiveThe Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network reported that left ventricular reverse remodeling at 2 years did not differ between patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation randomized to coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair (n = 150) or coronary artery bypass grafting alone (n = 151). To address health resource use implications, we compared costs and quality-adjusted survival.MethodsWe used individual patient data from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial on survival, hospitalizations, quality of life, and US hospitalization costs to estimate cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years. A microsimulation model was developed to extrapolate to 10 years. Bootstrap and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty.ResultsIn-hospital costs were $59,745 for coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair versus $51,326 for coronary artery bypass grafting alone (difference $8419; 95% uncertainty interval, 2259-18,757). Two-year costs were $81,263 versus $67,341 (difference 13,922 [2370 to 28,888]), and quality-adjusted life years were 1.35 versus 1.30 (difference 0.05; -0.04 to 0.14), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $308,343/quality-adjusted life year for coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair. At 10 years, its costs remained higher ($107,733 vs $88,583, difference 19,150 [-3866 to 56,826]) and quality-adjusted life years showed no difference (-0.92 to 0.87), with 5.08 versus 5.08. The likelihood that coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair would be considered cost-effective at 10 years based on a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100K/quality-adjusted life year did not exceed 37%. Only when this procedure reduces the death rate by a relative 5% will the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio fall below $100K/quality-adjusted life year.ConclusionsThe addition of mitral valve repair to coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation is unlikely to be cost-effective. Only if late mortality benefits can be demonstrated will it meet commonly used cost-effectiveness criteria.

Project description:BackgroundIn the management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (PAD), the administration of anticoagulant or antiplatelet agents is imperative. The use of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) in conjunction with rivaroxaban has shown potential in mitigating adverse outcomes. Given the heterogeneity in the pathology of lower limb arteries, there is a compelling case for individualized treatment strategies.MethodsIn a single-center retrospective study on pharmacotherapy for peripheral artery disease, patients were treated with either aspirin combined with rivaroxaban or aspirin coupled with clopidogrel. The primary efficacy outcome encompassed a composite of increases in the Rutherford classification, acute limb ischemia, amputations due to vascular causes, target lesion revascularization, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, as defined by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria; meanwhile, major bleeding as categorized by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) served as a secondary safety outcome. The study differentiated between two subgroups: patients with only above-the-knee and below-the-knee arterial lesions.ResultsFrom January 2016 to December 2021, 455 patients received either clopidogrel plus aspirin or rivaroxaban plus aspirin following endovascular treatment (EVT). The rivaroxaban group (n = 220) exhibited a lower incidence of primary efficacy outcomes [49.1% vs. 60.4%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, P = 0.006] but had more TIMI major bleeding events (5.9% vs. 2.1%, HR 2.6, P = 0.04). ISTH major bleeding events did not show a significant difference, though a higher percentage of rivaroxaban patients discontinued medication due to bleeding (10% vs. 4.7%, HR 2.2, P = 0.03). In the above-the-knee arterial disease subgroup, the rivaroxaban group demonstrated a lower incidence of primary efficacy outcomes (28.2% vs. 45.2%, HR 0.55, P = 0.02). In the below-the-knee arterial disease subgroup, no significant difference was observed in the occurrence of primary efficacy events between the two groups (58.7% vs. 64.8%, HR 0.76, P = 0.14).ConclusionRivaroxaban plus aspirin improved outcomes compared to DAPT in patients with lower extremity artery disease. Similar findings were observed in the above-the-knee artery lesion-only group. However, in the below-the-knee artery lesion-only group, rivaroxaban plus aspirin did not surpass DAPT in efficacy. Regarding safety, rivaroxaban plus aspirin exhibited higher bleeding risks and more frequent treatment discontinuation than aspirin combined with clopidogrel.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dual pathway inhibition with 2.5?mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100?mg aspirin once daily may be a promising alternative to 100?mg aspirin antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease and/or peripheral arterial disease. However, treatment costs and bleeding risks are higher, and there is another treatment option for peripheral arterial disease, 75?mg clopidogrel. A comprehensive assessment of benefits, risks and costs of dual pathway inhibition versus standard of care is needed. METHODS:We used a state transition model including cardiovascular, ischaemic limb and bleeding events to compare dual pathway inhibition to aspirin antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease, and additionally to clopidogrel antiplatelet therapy in peripheral arterial disease patients. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from costs and quality-adjusted life-years of lifelong treatment, and the cost-effectiveness probability at a €50,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. RESULTS:Quality-adjusted life-years and costs of dual pathway inhibition were highest, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios versus aspirin were €32,109 in coronary artery disease and €26,381 in peripheral arterial disease patients, with 92% and 56% cost-effectiveness probability, respectively (clopidogrel was extendedly dominated). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below €20,000 in comorbid peripheral arterial disease patients and coronary artery disease patients younger than 65 years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were above €50,000 in carotid artery disease patients and coronary artery disease patients older than 75 years. CONCLUSION:Lifelong preventive treatment of coronary artery disease and peripheral arterial disease patients at risk of cardiovascular events with dual pathway inhibition improves health outcomes and seems overall cost-effective relative to aspirin antiplatelet therapy and also to clopidogrel antiplatelet therapy for peripheral arterial disease, particularly in comorbid patients, but not in older patients and in carotid artery disease patients. These findings may warrant a targeted approach.