INTRODUCTION: Rivaroxaban is an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor that is noninferior to warfarin in the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether rivaroxaban is cost-effective in the prevention of recurrent VTE, however, is not known. MATERIAL AND METHODS: To assess the cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the prevention of recurrent VTE, we built a Markov state-transition model over a 10-year time horizon. The base case analysis consisted of a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old patients with an initial VTE who received secondary prophylaxis with either rivaroxaban or warfarin for 3 to 12months. Cost estimates were derived from the Healthcare and Utilization Project and other sources. Probabilities were based on literature values. Outcomes included costs in 2011 United States dollars, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over 10years from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Compared with warfarin, the rivaroxaban strategy cost less ($3,195 vs. $6,188) and was more effective (9.29 QALYs vs 9.14 QALYs). Our results were highly robust in sensitivity analyses. Warfarin was no longer dominated by rivaroxaban when the risk of major bleeding with rivaroxaban exceeds 3.8% (base case estimate: 0.96%). CONCLUSION: In summary, prophylactic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban appears to be a cost effective, and perhaps cost saving, alternative to warfarin for the prevention of recurrent VTE.
INTRODUCTION:Rivaroxaban is an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor that is noninferior to warfarin in the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether rivaroxaban is cost-effective in the prevention of recurrent VTE, however, is not known. MATERIAL AND METHODS: To assess the cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the prevention of recurrent VTE, we built a Markov state-transition model over a 10-year time horizon. The base case analysis consisted of a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old patients with an initial VTE who received secondary prophylaxis with either rivaroxaban or warfarin for 3 to 12months. Cost estimates were derived from the Healthcare and Utilization Project and other sources. Probabilities were based on literature values. Outcomes included costs in 2011 United States dollars, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over 10years from a societal perspective. RESULTS: Compared with warfarin, the rivaroxaban strategy cost less ($3,195 vs. $6,188) and was more effective (9.29 QALYs vs 9.14 QALYs). Our results were highly robust in sensitivity analyses. Warfarin was no longer dominated by rivaroxaban when the risk of major bleeding with rivaroxaban exceeds 3.8% (base case estimate: 0.96%). CONCLUSION: In summary, prophylactic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban appears to be a cost effective, and perhaps cost saving, alternative to warfarin for the prevention of recurrent VTE.
Authors: Tereza Lanitis; Robert Leipold; Melissa Hamilton; Dale Rublee; Peter Quon; Chantelle Browne; Alexander T Cohen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Thomas L Ortel; Ignacio Neumann; Walter Ageno; Rebecca Beyth; Nathan P Clark; Adam Cuker; Barbara A Hutten; Michael R Jaff; Veena Manja; Sam Schulman; Caitlin Thurston; Suresh Vedantham; Peter Verhamme; Daniel M Witt; Ivan D Florez; Ariel Izcovich; Robby Nieuwlaat; Stephanie Ross; Holger J Schünemann; Wojtek Wiercioch; Yuan Zhang; Yuqing Zhang Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-10-13
Authors: Merlijn W J van Leent; Jelena Stevanović; Frank G Jansman; Maarten J Beinema; Jacobus R B J Brouwers; Maarten J Postma Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 3.240