Tereza Lanitis

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban vs. current standard of care for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Aims Warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), has been the standard of care for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Aspirin is recommended for low-risk patients and those unsuitable for warfarin. Apixaban is an oral anticoagulant that has demonstrated better efficacy than warfarin and aspirin in the ARISTOTLE and AVERROES studies, respectively, and causes less bleeding than warfarin. We evaluated the potential cost-effectiveness of apixaban against warfarin and aspirin from the perspective of the UK payer perspective. Results and methods A lifetime Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic impact of apixaban compared with warfarin and aspirin in VKA suitable and VKA unsuitable patients, respectively. Clinical events considered in the model include ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, other major bleed, clinically relevant non-major bleed, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospitalization and treatment discontinuations; data from the ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials and published mortality rates and event-related utility rates were used in the model. Apixaban was projected to increase life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with warfarin and aspirin. These gains were expected to be achieved at a drug acquisition-related cost increase over lifetime. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £11 909 and £7196 per QALY gained with apixaban compared with warfarin and aspirin, respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust to a wide range of inputs. Conclusions Based on randomized trial data, apixaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin and aspirin, in VKA suitable and VKA unsuitable patients with AF, respectively.

Cost-Effectiveness of Apixaban Versus Other New Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND Apixaban (5 mg BID), dabigatran (available as 150 mg and 110 mg BID in Europe), and rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily) are 3 novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) currently approved for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of apixaban against other NOACs from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Services. METHODS A Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic impact of apixaban versus other NOACs over a lifetime. Pair-wise indirect treatment comparisons were conducted against other NOACs by using ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation), RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy), and ROCKET-AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial results for the following end points: ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds, myocardial infarction, and treatment discontinuations. Outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life years gained, direct health care costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS Apixaban was projected to increase life expectancy versus other NOACs, including dabigatran (both doses) and rivaroxaban. A small increase in therapeutic management costs was observed with apixaban due to projected gains in life expectancy and lower discontinuation rates anticipated on apixaban versus other NOACs through lifetime. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £9611, £4497, and £5305 per quality-adjusted life-year gained with apixaban compared with dabigatran 150 mg BID, dabigatran 110 mg BID, and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily, respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust over a wide range of inputs. CONCLUSIONS Although our analysis was limited by the absence of head-to-head trials, based on the indirect comparison data available, our model projects that apixaban may be a cost-effective alternative to dabigatran 150 mg BID, dabigatran 110 mg BID, and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily for stroke prevention in AF patients from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Services.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus warfarin and aspirin in Sweden for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION Atrial fibrillation (AF), one of the major risk factors for stroke, imposing a substantial burden to the Swedish health care system. Apixaban has demonstrated superiority to warfarin and aspirin in stroke prevention amongst patients with AF in two large randomised clinical trials. The aim of this study was to assess the economic implications of apixaban against warfarin and aspirin in these patients from a Swedish societal perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS A Markov cohort model was constructed to characterise the consequences of anticoagulant treatment with regards to thromboembolic and bleeding events, as well as the associated health care costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for patients with AF treated with apixaban, warfarin or aspirin. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY gained of apixaban relative to warfarin (among patients suitable for warfarin treatment) and aspirin (among patients unsuitable for warfarin treatment) were calculated. Costs (in 2011 SEKs) and QALYs were discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS The model estimated the ICER of apixaban versus warfarin amongst patients who are suitable for warfarin therapy to be SEK 33,458/QALY gained and that of apixaban versus aspirin amongst those unsuitable for warfarin therapy to be SEK 41,453/QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicate that apixaban is an optimal treatment option compared with warfarin and aspirin, when the willingness-to-pay is above SEK 35,000 and SEK 45,000 per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Apixaban was found to be a cost-effective alternative to warfarin and aspirin for stroke prevention in patients with AF in Sweden.

Cost effectiveness of apixaban versus aspirin for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Belgium

Background and ObjectiveEvidence indicates that vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and oral anticoagulant therapy are under-utilised for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF), and patients who decline or cannot tolerate such treatment are often prescribed aspirin instead. Apixaban has been shown in the AVERROES trial to be superior to aspirin in preventing stroke and systemic embolism without significantly increasing the risk of major bleeding among patients with AF who are unsuitable for VKA therapy. This study estimates the economic implications and potential cost effectiveness of apixaban compared with aspirin in such individuals from the perspective of healthcare payers in Belgium.MethodsA Markov model was developed to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of apixaban compared with aspirin in patients unsuitable for VKA therapy. The clinical events modelled include ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, intracranial haemorrhage, other major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospitalisation and treatment discontinuations obtained from AVERROES. Outcomes included life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a lifetime.ResultsApixaban was projected to increase life expectancy and QALYs compared with aspirin, with an associated increase in drug acquisition costs. The estimated ICER was €7,334 per QALY gained with apixaban compared with aspirin.ConclusionsApixaban is a cost-effective alternative to aspirin for patients with AF in Belgium who decline or cannot tolerate VKA treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of Apixaban Versus Other Oral Anticoagulants for the Initial Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism and Prevention of Recurrence

PURPOSE To assess the cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus rivaroxaban, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)/dabigatran, and LMWH/vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for the initial treatment and prevention of recurrent thromboembolic events in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS A Markov model was developed to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic effect of 6 months of treatment with apixaban versus other anticoagulants over a lifetime horizon. Network meta-analyses were conducted using the results of the Apixaban after the Initial Management of Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis with First-Line Therapy (AMPLIFY), EINSTEIN-pooled, and RE-COVER I and II trials for the following end points: recurrent VTE, major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and treatment discontinuations. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the United Kingdom National Health Service. The outcomes evaluated were the number of events avoided in a 1000-patient cohort, total costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost per QALY gained over a patients lifetime. FINDINGS Treatment for 6 months with apixaban was projected to result in fewer recurrent VTE and bleeding events in comparison to rivaroxaban, LMWH/dabigatran, and LMWH/VKA. Apixaban was cost-effective compared with LMWH/VKA at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2520 per QALY gained and was a dominant (ie, lower costs and higher QALYs) alternative to either rivaroxaban or LMWH/dabigatran. Sensitivity analysis indicated that results were robust over a wide range of inputs. IMPLICATIONS The assessment of the effects and costs of apixaban in this study predicted that apixaban is a dominant alternative to rivaroxaban and LMWH/dabigatran and a cost-effective alternative to LMWH/VKA for 6 months of treatment of VTE and the prevention of recurrence.

Clinical and Economic Implications of Apixaban Versus Aspirin in the Low-Risk Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients.

Background and Purpose— Although recommended by guidelines, the benefits of treating patients with atrial fibrillation with a low–stroke risk score, with aspirin or anticoagulants, have not been clearly established. With advent of safer non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant, we assessed the clinical and economic implications of 5 mg BID of apixaban versus aspirin among patients with a relative low risk of stroke as assessed using the CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age>75, diabetes mellitus, stroke/transient ischemic attack) and CHA2DS2–VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes mellitus, stroke/transient ischemic attack, vascular disease) stroke risk classification. Methods— A previously developed and validated Markov model was adapted. A secondary analysis of the Apixaban Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid to Prevent Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Who Have Failed or Are Unsuitable for Vitamin K Antagonist Treatment (AVERROES) study was conducted to estimate event rates in different low-risk cohorts by treatment. Three cohorts (n=1000) with a CHADS2 score of 1, CHA2DS2–VASc score of 1, and CHA2DS2–VASc of score 2 to 4 were simulated to assess the number of clinical events avoided in terms of strokes and major bleeds, as well as life years gained, quality-adjusted life years gained, costs, and incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year gained. Results— Apixaban was associated with fewer strokes and systemic embolism versus aspirin across all subgroups; however, it caused more major bleeding events. The reduction in systemic embolism offset the increase in major bleeding events leading to increased life expectancy and quality-adjusted life year gains, achieved at an increased cost that was lower than the UK threshold of

Cost-effectiveness of Apixaban Compared With Edoxaban for Stroke Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

44 400 (ie, £30 000) per quality-adjusted life year gained across the 3 cohorts examined. Conclusions— Anticoagulant treatment with apixaban versus aspirin in low-risk patients, as identified using CHADS2 or CHA2DS2–VASc, is projected to increase life expectancy and provide clinical benefits that are cost effective.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF EXTENDED AND ONE-TIME SCREENING FOR ATRIAL FIBRILLATION VERSUS NO SCREENING IN THE UNITED STATES

PURPOSE The purpose of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of apixaban 5 mg BID versus high- and low-dose edoxaban (60 mg and 30 mg once daily) as intended starting dose strategies for stroke prevention in patients from a UK National Health Service perspective. METHODS A previously developed and validated Markov model was adapted to evaluate the lifetime clinical and economic impact of apixaban 5 mg BID versus edoxaban (high and low dose) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. A pairwise indirect treatment comparison was conducted for clinical end points, and price parity was assumed between apixaban and edoxaban. Costs in 2012 British pounds, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, discounted at 3.5% per annum, were estimated. FINDINGS Apixaban was predicted to increase life expectancy and QALYs versus low- and high-dose edoxaban. These gains were achieved at cost-savings versus low-dose edoxaban, thus being dominant and nominal increases in costs versus high-dose edoxaban. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of apixaban versus high-dose edoxaban was £6763 per QALY gained. IMPLICATIONS Apixaban was deemed to be dominant (less costly and more effective) versus low-dose edoxaban and a cost-effective alternative to high-dose edoxaban.

Intravitreal Aflibercept Versus Ranibizumab for Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia, contributing to ≥15% of strokes in the United States (US). Its often asymptomatic nature makes finding cases challenging, and 24.6% of AF cases remain undiagnosed. Research has focused on screening for AF to prevent stroke via timely intervention.

VALIDATION OF THE APIXABAN COST-EFFECTIVENESS MODEL IN PATIENTS WITH VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM

BACKGROUND Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of vision loss in the United States. The most severe vision loss occurs in patients with neovascular AMD, known as wet AMD (wAMD). The most commonly used antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapies approved by the FDA to treat patients with wAMD are ranibizumab, 0.5 mg administered by intravitreal injection once a month (approximately every 28 days), and intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI), 2 mg every 4 weeks (monthly) for the first 12 weeks (3 months), followed by IAI 2 mg once every 8 weeks (2 months). Given the similar efficacy and safety profiles between IAI and ranibizumab, their associated costs and comparative cost-effectiveness are key factors in determining which one represents a more rational investment of scarce health care resources to help address the increasing cost of prescription drugs in the United States, a source of concern for patients, prescribers, payers, and policymakers. OBJECTIVE To assess the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept injection 2 mg every 8 weeks after 3 initial monthly doses (IAI 2q8) versus ranibizumab 0.5 mg monthly (Rq4) and pro re nata (PRN) in the treatment of patients with wAMD from a U.S. payer perspective. METHODS A Markov cohort model was developed to estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs of treating patients with wAMD with IAI 2q8, Rq4, and ranibizumab PRN. The model considered changes in best-corrected visual acuity in the affected and fellow eyes over time, and the effect of blindness on mortality. Efficacy for IAI 2q8 and Rq4 was from VIEW 1 and VIEW 2 studies and from the Comparison of AMD Treatments Trials for ranibizumab PRN. Utilities and costs (in 2016 U.S. dollars) were from published literature. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. RESULTS Over a lifetime, IAI 2q8 provided equal health benefits with Rq4 (5.44 QALYs) at a lower total cost (