Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs of Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Obesity and Diabetes
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Weir M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8586051 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionNew target-specific oral anticoagulants may have benefits, such as shorter hospital length of stay, compared to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study aimed to assess, among patients with NVAF, the effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on health care costs in a cohort of rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users.MethodsHealth care claims from the Humana database from 5/2011 to 12/2012 were analyzed. Adult patients newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥2 atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnoses (The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification: 427.31) and without valvular AF were identified. Based on propensity score methods, warfarin patients were matched 1:1 to rivaroxaban patients. Patients were observed up to end of data, end of insurance coverage, death, a switch to another anticoagulant, or treatment nonpersistence. Health care costs [hospitalization, emergency room (ER), outpatient, and pharmacy costs] were evaluated using Lin's method.ResultsMatches were found for all rivaroxaban patients, and characteristics of the matched groups (n = 2253 per group) were well balanced. Estimated mean all-cause and AF-related hospitalization costs were significantly lower for rivaroxaban versus warfarin patients (all-cause: $5411 vs. $7427, P = 0.047; AF-related: $2872 vs. $4147, P = 0.020). Corresponding estimated mean all-cause outpatient visit costs were also significantly lower, but estimated mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher for rivaroxaban patients ($5316 vs. $2620, P < 0.001). Although estimated mean costs of ER visits were higher for rivaroxaban users compared to those of warfarin users, differences were not statistically significant. Including anticoagulant costs, mean overall total all-cause costs were comparable for rivaroxaban versus warfarin users due to cost offset from a reduction in the number and length of hospitalizations and number of outpatient visits ($17,590 vs. $18,676, P = 0.542).ConclusionDespite higher anticoagulant cost, mean overall total all-cause and AF-related cost remains comparable for patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin due to the cost offset from reduced health care resource utilization.
| S-EPMC4376962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent evidence suggests that rivaroxaban may be well tolerated and effective in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and obesity; however, there is limited evidence on the impact of polypharmacy in this population. This study evaluated real-world clinical outcomes with rivaroxaban versus warfarin in patients with NVAF and obesity according to the number of concurrent medications.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study identified patients with one or more pharmacy claim for rivaroxaban or warfarin from two large claims databases. Patients were required to have an atrial fibrillation diagnosis, body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 and the presence of polypharmacy (1-4, 5-9, or ≥ 10 concurrent medications). Outcomes of stroke, systemic embolism, and major bleeding were compared between the rivaroxaban and warfarin cohorts after propensity score matching (PSM).ResultsA total of 95,875 patients were identified with one or more claim for either rivaroxaban or warfarin. After PSM, patient characteristics were balanced between cohorts (n = 21,547 in each cohort). The overall composite risk of stroke and systemic embolism was significantly lower in the rivaroxaban cohort compared with the warfarin cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.84; p < 0.001). The risks of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and systemic embolism separately were also significantly reduced with rivaroxaban. Major bleeding risk was similar between cohorts (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81-1.06; p = 0.2842), and results were consistent across the three polypharmacy groups.ConclusionsIn this real-world study of NVAF patients with obesity, rivaroxaban was associated with lower risks of stroke and systemic embolism and similar risk of major bleeding versus warfarin across polypharmacy categories.
| S-EPMC9270287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Alternative anticoagulants to warfarin (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) are becoming available for the prevention of thromboembolic stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF), but there is a lack of information on their comparative effectiveness. Using a discrete event simulation method adopting a lifetime horizon of analysis, we made an indirect comparison of the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE trial results for AF patients in the US population. Over a lifetime, apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban accrued 0.130 (95% central range (CR) -0.030 to 0.264), 0.106 (95% CR -0.048 to 0.248), and 0.095 (95% CR -0.052 to 0.242) more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), respectively, than warfarin, with apixaban having a 55% probability of accruing the highest total QALYs. In the absence of a definitive trial, and acknowledging the limitations of an indirect comparison, the available evidence suggests apixaban to be the most effective anticoagulant.
| S-EPMC3827745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCurrent evidence indicates that rivaroxaban may be a safe and effective alternative to warfarin among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and obesity. However, evidence regarding the impact of polypharmacy is limited in this population. The present study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin among NVAF patients with obesity and polypharmacy in the US.MethodsDe-identified health insurance claims data from the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus data (01/2010-09/2019) were used to identify NVAF patients with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) and polypharmacy (≥ 5 medications) initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for imbalances between groups. Study outcomes were evaluated up to 36 months post-treatment initiation and included the composite of stroke or systemic embolism (stroke/SE) and major bleeding. Subgroup analyses were conducted stratified by polypharmacy category (5-9 or ≥ 10 medications). Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression models with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 7000 and 3920 NVAF patients with obesity and polypharmacy were initiated on rivaroxaban and warfarin, respectively. At 36 months of follow-up, rivaroxaban was associated with a 29% lower risk of stroke/SE relative to warfarin (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57, 0.90). Major bleeding risk was not significantly different among rivaroxaban- compared to warfarin-treated patients (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70, 1.03). Subgroup analyses yielded results that were largely consistent with the overall polypharmacy analysis.ConclusionsThese results suggest that rivaroxaban is an effective and safe treatment option among NVAF patients with obesity and polypharmacy in a commercially-insured US population.
| S-EPMC8280049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. New oral anticoagulants (NOAC; rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban) have become available as an alternative to warfarin anticoagulation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Methods. MEDLINE and CENTRAL, regulatory agencies websites, clinical trials registers and conference proceedings were searched to identify randomised controlled trials of NOAC versus warfarin in NVAF. Two investigators reviewed all studies and extracted data on patient and study characteristics along with cardiovascular outcomes. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a random effect meta-analysis. Results. Three clinical trials in 50,578 patients were included. The risk of non-hemorrhagic stroke and systemic embolic events (SEE) was similar with the NOAC and warfarin (RR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.83-1.04), while the risk of intracranial bleeding (ICB) with the NOAC was lower than with warfarin (RR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.33-0.65). We found differences in the effect size on all strokes and SEE depending on geographic region as well as on non-hemorrhagic stroke, SEE, bleeding and mortality depending on time in therapeutic range. Conclusion. The NOAC seem no more effective than warfarin for prevention of nonhemorrhagic stroke and SEE in the overall NVAF population, but are generally associated with a lower risk of ICB than warfarin.
| S-EPMC3885278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFurther studies are needed to expand the evidence for the association of rivaroxaban with a lower risk of adverse renal outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) as compared with warfarin, especially in Asians.ObjectivesTo determine whether there are differences in adverse renal outcomes between rivaroxaban and warfarin-treated AF patients.MethodsUsing the Korean nationwide claims database partly linked to laboratory results, patients with AF who initiated warfarin or rivaroxaban from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2017 were identified. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the baseline characteristics of the two groups. The primary outcome (kidney failure) was defined as the need for maintenance dialysis or having kidney transplantation. For the exploratory analysis in a subset of patients with baseline and follow-up laboratory results, the composite of renal outcomes, including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) lower than 15 ml/min/1.73 m2 at follow-up measurement, starting dialysis, or having kidney transplantation, ≥ 30% decline in eGFR, doubling of serum creatinine level, and acute kidney injury (AKI) were evaluated. The two groups were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression in the weighted population.ResultsWe identified 30,933 warfarin users and 17,013 rivaroxaban users (51% of low dose rivaroxaban). After IPTW, the mean age was 70 years, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.9 in both groups. During a median follow-up of 0.93 (interquartile ranges 0.23-2.10) years, weighted incidence rates of kidney failure for warfarin and rivaroxaban were 0.83 and 0.32 per 100 person-years, respectively. Compared with the warfarin group, the rivaroxaban group was associated with a lower risk of kidney failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0.389, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.300-0.499, p < 0.001). In patients with preexisting chronic kidney disease or eGFR ≤ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, rivaroxaban was more beneficial than warfarin in reducing the risk of kidney failure. For the composite of five renal outcomes in the exploratory analysis, the rivaroxaban group showed a lower risk than warfarin (HR 0.798, 95% CI 0.713-0.892, p < 0.001).ConclusionRivaroxaban was associated with lower risks of renal adverse outcomes than warfarin in Korean patients with AF.
| S-EPMC9996329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScreening for asymptomatic, undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) has the potential to allow earlier treatment, possibly resulting in prevention of strokes, but also to increase medical resource utilization.ObjectiveTo compare healthcare utilization rates during the year following initiation of screening among participants screened for AF by electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor patch compared with a matched observational control group.MethodsA total of 1718 participants recruited from a health care plan based on age and comorbidities who were screened with an ECG patch (actively monitored group) as part of a prospective, pragmatic research trial were matched by age, sex, and CHA2DS2-VASc score with 3371 members from the same health plan (observational control group). Healthcare utilization, including visits, prescriptions, procedures, and diagnoses, during the 1 year following screening was compared between the groups using health plan claims data.ResultsOverall, the actively monitored group had significantly higher rates of cardiology visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.43 [1.27, 1.60]), no difference in primary care provider visits (aIRR [95% CI]: 1.0 [0.95, 1.05]), but lower rates of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations (aIRR [95% CI]: 0.80 [0.69, 0.92]) compared with controls. Among those with newly diagnosed AF, the reduction in ED visits and hospitalizations was even greater (aIRR [95% CI]: 0.27 [0.17, 0.43]).ConclusionAF screening in an asymptomatic, moderate-risk population with an ECG patch was associated with an increase in cardiology outpatient visits but also significantly lower rates of ED visits and hospitalizations over the 1 year following screening.
| S-EPMC8183948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common heart rhythm disorder among adults and leads to substantial morbidity and mortality. Objectives The purpose of the study was to provide current estimates on the incremental healthcare utilization and cost burden associated with incident AF diagnosis in the United States. Methods Adults with an incident diagnosis of AF (2017–2020) were identified using the Optum Clinformatics database. Propensity matching was employed to match patients with incident AF to a comparator group of non-AF patients on several demographic and clinical characteristics. Outcomes including 12-month all-cause and cardiovascular (CV)-related healthcare utilization, as well as the medical cost associated with health services use, were assessed. Logistic and general linear models were used to examine study outcomes. Sub-analyses were performed to determine the incremental AF burden by specific sex and racial/ethnic categories. Results A total of 79,621 patients were identified in each cohort (AF and non-AF). As compared to the non-AF cohort, patients with AF had significantly higher all-cause inpatient visits (relative risk [RR] 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.76–1.78), CV-related inpatient visits (RR 2.51; 95% CI 2:49–2:53), and CV-related emergency room visits (RR: 2.41; 95% CI 2:35–2:47). The mean total healthcare cost for patients with AF was $27,896 more (per patient per year) than the non-AF cohort ($63,031 vs $35,135, P < .001). Conclusion Medical services utilization and cost were significantly higher among AF patients than non-AF patients. Early treatment is likely to be critical to addressing the considerable disease burden imposed by AF.
| S-EPMC9626881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWarfarin, an inexpensive drug that has been available for over half a century, has been the mainstay of anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Recently, rivaroxaban, a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) which offers some distinct advantages over warfarin, the standard of care in a world without NOACs, has been introduced and is now recommended by international guidelines.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate, from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus use of warfarin for the treatment of patients with non-valvular AF at moderate to high risk.MethodsA Markov model was designed and populated with local cost estimates, safety-on-treatment clinical results from the pivotal phase III ROCKET AF trial and utility values obtained from the literature.ResultsRivaroxaban treatment was associated with fewer ischemic strokes and systemic embolisms (0.308 vs. 0.321 events), intracranial bleeds (0.048 vs. 0.063), and myocardial infarctions (0.082 vs. 0.095) per patient compared with warfarin. Over a lifetime time horizon, rivaroxaban led to a reduction of 0.042 life-threatening events per patient, and increases of 0.111 life-years and 0.094 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus warfarin treatment. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €8,809 per QALY or €7,493 per life-year gained. These results are based on valuated data from 2010. Sensitivity analysis indicated that these results were robust and that rivaroxaban is cost-effective compared with warfarin in 87 % of cases should a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35,000/QALY gained be considered.ConclusionsThe present analysis suggests that rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin therapy for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF in the Belgian healthcare setting.
| S-EPMC3824571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rivaroxaban is broadly used for the primary prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in the general population with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there is little published evidence on the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban for AF in patients with active cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban in patients with active cancer and AF. The use of rivaroxaban in patients with cancer at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is monitored in the setting of a Quality Assessment Initiative. Patients with active cancer and AF, treated with rivaroxaban from January 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016, are included in this analysis. Clinical end points were defined a priori and assessed through text searches of medical records. A total of 163 evaluable patients were identified. After adjusting for competing risks, the estimated 1-year cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke was 1.4% (95% CI 0% to 3.4%) and major bleeding was 1.2% (95% CI 0% to 2.9%). The risk of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding leading to discontinuation of anticoagulation at 1 year was 14.0% (95% CI 4.2% to 22.7%). The cumulative incidence of mortality was 22.6% (95% CI 12.2% to 31.7%) at 1 year, reflecting an active cancer population. One patient died after developing an acute ischemic cerebrovascular insult. In conclusion, the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban treatment for nonvalvular AF in patients with active cancer is comparable to the results of the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET-AF) study in the general population.
| S-EPMC5523442 | biostudies-literature