Key result
Rivaroxaban is linked to ~$4499 lower medical costs vs warfarin in obese NVAF patients with polypharmacy.
Why the study?
The economic burden of NVAF is substantial, and many patients are obese and manage other conditions requiring polypharmacy, but comparative healthcare resource use and costs between anticoagulants in this population were unclear.
Does rivaroxaban reduce health care resource use and costs compared to warfarin in patients with NVAF, polypharmacy, and obesity?
Cohort (n=39,980)
Does rivaroxaban reduce health care resource use and costs compared to warfarin in patients with NVAF, polypharmacy, and obesity?
Effect estimate: Mean difference -$4499 (95% CI -5660 to -3305)
In patients with NVAF, obesity, and polypharmacy, rivaroxaban is associated with lower all-cause health care resource use and costs compared to warfarin.
Associated with lower all-cause costs in this cohort; hypothesis-generating and requires RCT confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: The economic burden of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is substantial. Many patients with NVAF are obese and manage other health conditions requiring multiple medications. This real-world study compared health care resource use (HRU) and costs for rivaroxaban and warfarin in patients with NVAF who had polypharmacy and obesity. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used health care claims databases (Merative MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental claims) to identify patients initiating the direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥1 diagnostic claim for atrial fibrillation, presence of polypharmacy (based on 3 categories for the number of concurrent medications: 1-4, 5-9, ≥10), and obesity. Cohorts were balanced for demographic and baseline characteristics using propensity score matching. All-cause and NVAF-related HRU rates and costs were compared between treatments using rate ratios and adjusted mean differences per patient per year. Eligible patients totaled 95 875, with 19 990 patients in each treatment cohort following propensity score matching. All-cause HRU rates were significantly lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin, and hospital stays were reduced by 3.1 days with rivaroxaban. Mean (95% CI) all-cause total medical and total health care costs per patient per year were significantly reduced with rivaroxaban versus warfarin (-$4499 [-$5660 to -$3305] and -$1627 [-$2790 to -$438], respectively). NVAF-related HRU was reduced with rivaroxaban versus warfarin, but total NVAF-related medical costs were not significantly different between treatment groups ($144 [-$756 to $1079] per patient per year). Subgroup and sensitivity analysis results were generally consistent with the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with NVAF, polypharmacy, and obesity, rivaroxaban was associated with a reduction in HRU and all-cause costs compared with warfarin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alberts et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with polypharmacy and obesity (n=39,980). Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin was evaluated on All-cause total medical costs per patient per year (Mean difference -$4499, 95% CI -5660 to -3305). In patients with NVAF, polypharmacy, and obesity, rivaroxaban significantly reduced all-cause total medical costs compared with warfarin (mean difference -$4499; 95% CI -$5660 to -$3305).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: