Anastasia Ustyugova

Indirect comparison and cost-utility of dabigatran etexilate and rivaroxaban in the treatment and extended anticoagulation of venous thromboembolism in a UK setting

Abstract Background: Acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is traditionally managed with a short course of parenteral anticoagulation followed by 3–6 months of a vitamin-K antagonist. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) do not require routine monitoring and dose adjustment, thus potentially provide an alternative treatment option. Methods and results: Because of the lack of head-to-head clinical studies, an indirect comparison was conducted of dabigatran etexilate and rivaroxaban based on the respective phase III clinical trial. The derived relative safety and efficacy estimates were used to evaluate the cost-utility of dabigatran compared with rivaroxaban in the treatment and secondary prevention of VTE. The results of the indirect comparison showed no significant difference between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in avoiding recurrent VTE following index PE, index DVT, or DVT/PE combined, in treatment and extended anticoagulation. Dabigatran has significantly less major or clinically relevant bleeds (MCRBE) compared to rivaroxaban in treatment after index DVT and treatment after DVT or PE combined, but was not significantly different from rivaroxaban after index PE or in extended anticoagulation. In cost-utility deterministic analyses, dabigatran was projected dominant in all analyzed settings, given its marginally lower total cost and marginally higher QALYs gained compared to rivaroxaban. Probabilistic analyses results showed a high likelihood of dabigatran being considered good value for money in the UK, in treatment and in secondary prevention of VTE. Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness evaluations showed that dabigatran can be considered the dominant treatment strategy compared to rivaroxaban in the patients’ sub-groups considered, given the projected marginally higher clinical benefits and lower treatment costs.

Healthcare resource utilization in patients receiving idarucizumab for reversal of dabigatran anticoagulation due to major bleeding, urgent surgery, or procedural interventions: interim results from the RE-VERSE AD™ study

Abstract Aims: Patients treated with anticoagulants may experience serious bleeding or require urgent surgery or intervention, and may benefit from rapid anticoagulant reversal. This exploratory analysis assessed healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in patients treated with idarucizumab, a specific reversal agent for dabigatran etexilate. Materials and methods: RE-VERSE AD™ (NCT02104947), a prospective, multi-center open-label study, is evaluating idarucizumab for dabigatran reversal in patients with serious bleeding (Group A) or undergoing emergency surgery/procedures (Group B). HCRU outcome measures evaluated in the first 90 patients enrolled were use of blood products and pro-hemostatic agents, length of stay (LOS) in hospital, and LOS in intensive care unit (ICU). Results: Blood products or pro-hemostatic agents were given to 63% (32/51) of patients in Group A and 23% (9/39) of patients in Group B on the day of/day after surgery. An overnight hospital stay was reported for 82% (42/51) of patients in Group A with median LOS = 7 (range = 1–71) bed-days. For Group B, 92% (36/39) had an overnight hospital stay with a median LOS = 9 (range = 1–92) bed-days. In Group A, 17 patients were admitted to the ICU for at least 1 day with median LOS = 4 (range = 1–44) days; in Group B the number was 15 with median LOS = 2 (range = 1–92) days. Limitations: The lack of a control group and the small patient numbers limit the strength of the conclusions. Conclusions: The use of idarucizumab may simplify emergency management of dabigatran-treated patients with life-threatening bleeds and reduce perioperative complications in patients undergoing emergency surgery.

Comparison of Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND Decision on the most appropriate oral anticoagulation therapy for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is difficult because multiple treatment options are available, and these vary in their clinical effects and relevant nonclinical characteristics. OBJECTIVES To use a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to compare the oral anticoagulants apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and vitamin K antagonist (VKAs; specifically warfarin) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. METHODS We identified the evaluation criteria through a targeted literature review and clinical judgment. The final evaluation model included nine clinical events and four other criteria. We ranked possibly fatal clinical event criteria on the basis of the differences in risks of fatal events and the corresponding window of therapeutic opportunity, as observed in clinical trials. Clinical judgment was used to rank other criteria. Full criteria ranking was used to calculate centroid weights, which were combined with individual treatment performances to estimate the overall value score for each treatment. RESULTS Using such an MCDA, dabigatran yielded the highest overall value, approximately 6% higher than that of the second-best treatment, apixaban. Dabigatran also had the highest first-rank probability (0.72) in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Rivaroxaban performed worse than the other non-VKA oral anticoagulants, but better than VKAs (with both having 0.00 first-rank probability). The results were insensitive to changes in model structure. CONCLUSIONS When all key oral anticoagulant value criteria and their relative importance are investigated in an MCDA, dabigatran appears to rank the highest and warfarin the lowest.

Cardiovascular Safety of Empagliflozin Versus Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Literature Review and Indirect Comparisons

IntroductionClinical trials conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treated with glucose-lowering drugs and examining cardiovascular-related outcomes have yielded mixed results. In this work, we aimed to assess the relative treatment effects of empagliflozin versus sitagliptin and saxagliptin (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors) on cardiovascular-related outcomes in patients with T2DM.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review to identify clinical trials assessing cardiovascular-related outcomes for sitagliptin-, saxagliptin-, and empagliflozin-treated patients with T2DM. A network meta-analysis of indirect treatment comparisons was conducted in a Bayesian framework. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were computed for six cardiovascular-related outcomes to estimate the relative efficacies of these agents.ResultsEmpagliflozin showed a statistically significant superiority over saxagliptin (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.46–0.80) and sitagliptin (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.46–0.79) to reduce the risk for cardiovascular-related mortality. For all-cause mortality, empagliflozin showed a statistically significant risk reduction compared to saxagliptin (HR 0.61; 95% CrI 0.49–0.76) and sitagliptin (HR 0.67; 95% CrI 0.54–0.83). A similar pattern was observed in the risk reduction for hospitalization due to heart failure, where empagliflozin was found to be statistically significantly superior to saxagliptin (HR 0.51; 95% CrI 0.37–0.70) and sitagliptin (HR 0.65; 95% CrI 0.47–0.90). Empagliflozin was not statistically significantly different to sitagliptin and saxagliptin with regard to the risk of a composite endpoint composed of death, stroke or myocardial infarction.ConclusionIn this indirect comparison to the DPP-4 inhibitors saxagliptin and sitagliptin, empagliflozin significantly lowered the risk of cardiovascular-related mortality, all-cause mortality and hospitalizations due to heart failure.FundingBoehringer Ingelheim GmbH.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation using real-world evidence in elderly US Medicare beneficiaries

Abstract Objective: Dabigatran and rivaroxaban have been approved by the US FDA to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Newly published real-world evidence based on the US population found that elderly Medicare patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban experienced statistically significant increases in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding, and statistically nonsignificant decreases in thromboembolic stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared with dabigatran. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban for the treatment of US Medicare NVAF patients. Methods: A previously published Markov model was adapted to compare dabigatran and rivaroxaban. The model considered thromboembolic stroke, bleeding events, and AMI based on the published real-world event risks. Model outputs included clinical event rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: Dabigatran patients experienced fewer ICH and major extracranial bleeding events than rivaroxaban patients, but more stroke and AMI events. Dabigatran was found to yield lower costs and higher QALYs than rivaroxaban, with incremental costs of −

Comparison of Oral Anti-Coagulants for Stroke Prevention in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: Two Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses

3534 and incremental QALYs of 0.004. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses, with a positive net monetary benefit (willingness-to-pay thresholds of

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin Compared with Canagliflozin or Standard of Care (SoC) in Patients with T2DM and Established Cardiovascular (CV) Disease

50,000 and

Abstract 13225: Which Oral Anti-Coagulant Do Patients Prefer for Stroke Prevention in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation?

100,000 per QALY) for dabigatran over rivaroxaban for all model inputs tested. Conclusions: In this study using US Medicare real-world data, dabigatran was found to dominate rivaroxaban. The analyses were limited by the short follow-up period of the real-world data and results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.