Key result
Rivaroxaban plus aspirin proves consistently cost-effective compared with aspirin alone in cardiovascular disease.
Why the study?
Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death worldwide and carry significant health and economic impacts, motivating an evaluation of cost-effectiveness for rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone.
Is rivaroxaban plus aspirin more cost-effective than aspirin alone in the treatment of patients with cardiovascular diseases?
Systematic Review
Is rivaroxaban plus aspirin more cost-effective than aspirin alone in the treatment of patients with cardiovascular diseases?
This systematic review of nine Markov-model economic evaluations demonstrates that adding rivaroxaban to aspirin is consistently more cost-effective than aspirin monotherapy for secondary prevention in patients with cardiovascular diseases across multiple healthcare systems.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports rivaroxaban plus aspirin in CVD secondary prevention; extends efficacy data with consistent cost-effectiveness across modeled healthcare systems.
Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are one of the chronic diseases and the leading cause of death worldwide. More people die from CVDs worldwide than from any other cause each year. The effects of CVDs are not limited to mortality and morbidity but also have important health and economic outcomes. Methods: This was a systematic review that evaluated the economic evaluation of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone for the treatment of CVDs. The present study reviewed articles that performed a complete economic evaluation, including cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis related to the economic evaluation of rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin for knee replacement patients during the years 2007 and 2023. In order to find relevant studies, databases including Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Economic Evaluations Database, and Proquest were searched. Inclusion criteria included Studies that carried out a complete economic evaluation including cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis in relation to the economic evaluation of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared to aspirin alone for CVD patients, economic evaluation studies carried out using decision analysis models based on the economic evaluation approach, full-text studies, English studies, and were studies published between 2007 and 2023. Exclusion criteria also included partial economic evaluation (such as effectiveness evaluation, cost evaluation, and quality of life evaluation), studies of low methodological quality based on the CHEERS checklist, non-English studies and all protocols, conference abstracts, and letters-to-the-editor. Results: After searching various databases, all retrieved articles were entered into EndNote software, and duplicates were removed. The remaining studies were reviewed independently by two relevant researchers. At this stage, preferred reporting items for systematic reviews (PRISMA) were used to retrieve the final articles. Out of 1048 studies, nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The economic evaluation studies included in the present study were conducted between 2018 and 2023. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was used in all studies. Conclusion: The findings of the present study showed that rivaroxaban plus aspirin is more cost-effective than aspirin alone in the patient with CVDs, But to generalize the results to other countries of the world, more studies are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kemmak et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review in Cardiovascular diseases (coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, carotid artery disease). Rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs. Aspirin alone (100 mg once daily) was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] or life year gained [LYG]). Rivaroxaban plus aspirin was more cost-effective than aspirin alone in patients with cardiovascular diseases across 9 studies, with ICERs ranging from $3,946 to $83,459 per QALY.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: