Search

Purpose: Using real-world data, this study compares inpatient length of stay (LOS) and costs for patients with a primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) initiating treatment with oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban versus warfarin., Methods: Hospitalizations from MarketScan's Hospital Drug Database were selected from November 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013, for adults with a primary diagnosis of PE initiating treatment with rivaroxaban or warfarin. Warfarin patients were matched 1:1 to rivaroxaban patients using exact and propensity score matching. Hospital LOS, treatment patterns, and hospitalization costs were evaluated., Findings: Matched cohorts included 751 rivaroxaban-treated patients and 751 warfarin-treated patients. Adjusted mean LOS was 3.77 days for rivaroxaban patients (95% CI, 3.66-3.87 days) and 5.48 days for warfarin patients (95% CI, 5.33-5.63 days; P < .001). Mean (SD) LOS was shorter for patients taking rivaroxaban whether admission was for provoked PE (rivaroxaban: 5.2 [5.1] days; warfarin: 7.0 [6.5] days; P < .001) or unprovoked PE (rivaroxaban: 3.4 [2.3] days; warfarin: 5.1 [2.7] days; P < .001). Mean (SD) days from first dose to discharge were 2.5 (1.7) (rivaroxaban) and 4.0 (2.9) (warfarin) when initiated with parenteral anticoagulants (P < .001) and 2.7 (1.7) (rivaroxaban) and 4.0 (2.2) (warfarin) without parenteral anticoagulants (P < .001). The rivaroxaban cohort incurred significantly lower unadjusted mean (SD) hospitalization costs (rivaroxaban: $8473 [$9105]; warfarin: $10,291 [$9185]; P < .001), confirmed by covariate adjustment with generalized linear modeling estimating predicted mean hospitalization costs of $8266 for rivaroxaban patients (95% CI, $7851-$8681) and $10,511 for warfarin patients (95% CI, $10,031-$10,992; P < .001)., Implications: patients with PE treated with rivaroxaban incurred significantly lower hospitalization costs by $2245 per admission compared with patients treated with warfarin, which was attributable to cost offsets from 1.71 fewer days of stay in the hospital., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Venous thromboembolism, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, results in a substantial healthcare system burden. This retrospective observational study compared hospital length of stay (LOS) and hospitalization costs for patients with venous thromboembolism treated with rivaroxaban versus those treated with warfarin., Methods and Results: Hospitalizations for adult patients with a primary diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism who were initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin were selected from MarketScan's Hospital Drug Database between November 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013. Patients treated with warfarin were matched 1:1 to patients treated with rivaroxaban using exact and propensity score matching. Hospital LOS, time from first dose to discharge, and hospitalization costs were reported descriptively and with generalized linear models (GLMs). The final study cohorts each included 1223 patients (751 with pulmonary embolism and 472 with deep vein thrombosis). Cohorts were well matched for demographic and clinical characteristics. Mean (±SD) LOS was 3.7±3.1 days for patients taking rivaroxaban and 5.2±3.7 days for patients taking warfarin, confirmed by GLM-adjusted results (rivaroxaban 3.7 days, warfarin 5.3 days, P<0.001). Patients with provoked venous thromboembolism admissions showed longer LOSs (rivaroxaban 5.1±4.5 days, warfarin 6.5±5.6 days, P<0.001) than those with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (rivaroxaban 3.3±2.4 days, warfarin 4.8±2.8 days, P<0.001). Days from first dose to discharge were 2.4±1.7 for patients treated with rivaroxaban and 3.9±3.7 for patients treated with warfarin when initiated with parenteral anticoagulants (P<0.001), and 2.7±1.7 and 3.7±2.1, respectively, when initiated without parenteral anticoagulants (P<0.001). Patients initiated on rivaroxaban incurred significantly lower mean total hospitalization costs ($8688±$9927 versus $9823±$9319, P=0.004), confirmed by modeling (rivaroxaban $8387 [95% confidence interval, $8035-$8739]; warfarin $10 275 [95% confidence interval, $9842-$10 708])., Conclusions: Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly shorter hospital LOS and lower hospitalization costs compared with warfarin., (© 2016 The Authors, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and Truven Health Analytics. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Jeffrey D Miller,1 Xin Ye,2 Gregory M Lenhart,1 Amanda M Farr,1 Oth V Tran,1 W Jackie Kwong,2 Elizabeth A Magnuson,3 William S Weintraub41Truven Health Analytics Inc, Cambridge, MA, 2Daiichi Sankyo Inc, Parsippany, NJ, 3St Luke Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO, 4Center for Heart and Vascular Health, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, DE, USABackground: Understanding the value of new anticoagulation therapies compared with existing therapies is of paramount importance in today’s cost-conscious and efficiency-driven health care environment. Edoxaban and rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with CHADS2 scores ≥2 have been evaluated in pivotal trials versus warfarin. The relative value of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban would be of interest to health care stakeholders and patients who prefer a once-daily treatment option for long-term stroke prevention in NVAF.Objective: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of two once-daily regimens of novel oral anticoagulation therapy – edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) versus rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) – for stroke prevention in NVAF patients from a US health-plan perspective.Materials and methods: A Markov model simulated lifetime risk and treatment of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death in NVAF patients treated with edoxaban or rivaroxaban. Efficacy and safety data were derived from a network meta-analysis that utilized data from patients enrolled in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 and ROCKET-AF. Health care cost and utility data were obtained from published sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used as thresholds for “highly cost-effective”, “cost-effective”, and “not cost-effective” treatment options, respectively, as per American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines.Results: Edoxaban was dominant relative to rivaroxaban, such that it was associated with lower total health care costs and better effectiveness in terms of QALYs in the base-case analysis. Results were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analyses that showed edoxaban as either dominant or a highly cost-effective alternative (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio