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: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: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.

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:ImportancePatients with symptomatic lower extremity peripheral artery disease (LE-PAD) experience an increased risk of major vascular events. There is limited information on what clinical features of symptomatic LE-PAD prognosticate major vascular events and whether patients at high risk have a greater absolute benefit from low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin.ObjectiveTo quantify the risk of major vascular events and investigate the response to treatment with low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin among patients with symptomatic LE-PAD based on clinical presentation and comorbidities.Design, setting, and participantsThis is a subanalysis of a previously reported subgroup of patients with symptomatic LE-PAD who were enrolled in a large, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies [COMPASS]) in 602 centers in 33 countries from March 2013 to January 2020. Data analysis was completed from May 2016 to June 2020.InterventionsA combination of low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-month incidence risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death (MACE), major adverse limb events (MALE) including major vascular amputation, and bleeding.ResultsThe COMPASS trial enrolled 4129 patients with symptomatic LE-PAD (mean [SD] age, 66.8 [8.8] years; 2932 men [71.0%]). The 30-month Kaplan-Meier incidence risk of MACE or MALE, including major amputation, was 22.6% in those with prior amputation (this outcome was observed in 54 patients), 17.6% (n = 15) in those with Fontaine III or IV symptoms, and 11.8% (n = 142) in those with previous peripheral artery revascularization, classifying these features as high-risk limb presentations. The 30-month incidence risk of MACE or MALE, including major amputation, was 14.1% (n = 118) in those with kidney dysfunction, 13.5% (n = 67) in those with heart failure, 13.4% (n = 199) in those with diabetes, and 12.8% (n = 222) in those with polyvascular disease, classifying these features as high-risk comorbidities. Among patients with either high-risk limb presentations or high-risk comorbidities, treatment with rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone was associated with an estimated 4.2% (95% CI, 1.9%-6.2%) absolute risk reduction for MACE or MALE, including major amputation, at 30 months. Although the estimated absolute risk increase of major bleeding was higher with rivaroxaban and aspirin in combination than aspirin alone (2.0% [95% CI, 0.5%-3.9%]) for patients with either high-risk limb presentation or high-risk comorbidity, the estimated absolute risk increase of fatal or critical organ bleeding was low in this high-risk group (0.4% [95% CI, 0.2%-1.8%]), such that the net clinical benefit was estimated to be 3.2% (95% CI, 0.6%-5.3%).Conclusions and relevancePatients with LE-PAD with high-risk limb presentations or high-risk comorbidities had a high incidence of major vascular events. For these patients, treatment with rivaroxaban and aspirin in combination compared with aspirin alone led to a large absolute reduction in vascular risk.

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.

Dataset Information

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets