Key result
Rivaroxaban plus ASA proves cost-effective vs ASA alone in CAD or PAD at £16,360 per QALY.
Why the study?
Following the COMPASS trial demonstrating improved cardiovascular outcomes with rivaroxaban plus ASA, this study assessed the cost-effectiveness of this regimen compared with ASA alone from a UK NHS perspective.
Does rivaroxaban plus ASA improve cost-effectiveness compared to ASA alone in patients with chronic CAD or PAD?
Does rivaroxaban plus ASA improve cost-effectiveness compared to ASA alone in patients with chronic CAD or PAD?
Effect estimate: ICER £16 360 per QALY
Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus ASA is a cost-effective strategy compared to ASA alone for patients with chronic CAD or PAD from a UK National Health System perspective.
Supports reimbursement considerations for rivaroxaban plus ASA in chronic CAD/PAD; leaves open generalizability beyond modeled populations.
AIMS: In the COMPASS trial, rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (bid) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 100 mg once daily (od) performed better than ASA 100 mg od alone in reducing the rate of cardiovascular disease, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban plus ASA vs. ASA alone over a lifetime horizon, from the UK National Health System perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: The base case analysis assumed that patients entered the model in the event-free health state, with the possibility to experience ≤2 events, transitioning every three-month cycle, through acute and post-acute health states of MI, ischaemic stroke (IS), or intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), and death. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life years-all discounted at 3.5%-and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, as well as scenario analyses. In the model, patients on rivaroxaban plus ASA lived for an average of 14.0 years with no IS/MI/ICH, and gained 9.7 QALYs at a cost of £13 947, while those receiving ASA alone lived for an average of 12.7 years and gained 9.3 QALYs at a cost of £8126. The ICER was £16 360 per QALY. This treatment was cost-effective in 98% of 5000 iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: This Markov model suggests that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bid plus ASA is a cost-effective alternative to ASA alone in patients with chronic CAD or PAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cowie et al. (2019) studied chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease. Rivaroxaban plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) vs. ASA 100 mg once daily alone was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (ICER £16 360 per QALY). Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus ASA was cost-effective compared to ASA alone in patients with chronic CAD or PAD, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £16,360 per QALY.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: