Rivaroxaban More Cost-Effective than Warfarin in the Prevention of Recurrent VTE

VBCC - January 2013, Volume 4, No 1 - ASH Annual Meeting
Caroline Helwick

For the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), rivaroxaban (Xarelto) appears to be more cost-effective than warfarin (Coumadin), an independent analysis undertaken by the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine showed.

“These results demonstrate that, based on best-available evidence, prophylactic anticoagulation with rivarox­aban appears to be a cost-effective, and perhaps cost-saving, alternative to warfarin,” said Craig D. Seaman, MD, a hematology/oncology fellow with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “In sensitivity analyses, our results are highly robust over a wide range of values for all of the important parameters.”

Rivaroxaban is a once-daily oral anticoagulant that is an alternative to standard vitamin K antagonists and low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment and prevention of VTE.

The study was a base-case analysis that consisted of a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old patients who were diagnosed with an initial VTE, for which they received secondary prophylaxis with rivaroxaban or with warfarin for 6 months.

The model assumed a base-case value of $39 per dose for warfarin; $205 per dose for rivaroxaban; $8652 per a major bleeding event; $15,493 per intracranial hemorrhage; and $19,938 per intensive care unit stay. The quality-of-life values and probabilities for bleeding and death were part of the model.

The sensitivity analysis showed that the total cost for a base case was $3195 for rivaroxaban and $6188 for warfarin; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 9.29 and 9.14, respectively; and cost-effectiveness ratios were $344 and $677, respectively. Warfarin dominated in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, there was a 97.5% likelihood that rivaroxaban would be considered cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained, Dr Seaman added.

Related Items
Can Some Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Stop Treatment?
Caroline Helwick
Web Exclusives published on August 30, 2017 in Multiple Sclerosis
Oral Ozanimod: A Safer Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulator?
Caroline Helwick
Web Exclusives published on June 26, 2017 in Multiple Sclerosis
Vitamin D Supplementation Shows Benefits in Multiple Sclerosis, but Questions Remain
Caroline Helwick
Web Exclusives published on March 31, 2017 in Multiple Sclerosis
Ocrelizumab Receives Breakthrough Therapy for Progressive Multiple Sclerosis
Caroline Helwick
VBCN - April 2016 Volume 3, No 1 published on May 3, 2016 in Multiple Sclerosis
Ozanimod Achieves Very Low Relapse Rate in MS
Caroline Helwick
VBCN - April 2016 Volume 3, No 1 published on May 3, 2016 in Multiple Sclerosis
Stem-Cell Transplantation Shows Promise in Multiple Sclerosis, but Major Concerns Remain
Caroline Helwick
VBCN - April 2016 Volume 3, No 1 published on May 3, 2016 in Multiple Sclerosis
Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis Explored by Cost-Effectiveness
Caroline Helwick
VBCR - June 2015, Volume 4, No 3 published on June 29, 2015 in Psoriatic Arthritis
Treatment Outcomes and Cost Assessed for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Caroline Helwick
VBCR - June 2015, Volume 4, No 3 published on June 29, 2015 in Lupus
Ankylosing Spondylitis Treatment Costs Assessed
Caroline Helwick
VBCR - June 2015, Volume 4, No 3 published on June 29, 2015 in Ankylosing Spondylitis
Patients with Myeloma Satisfied with Their Care but Feel Unprepared to Discuss Treatment Choices
Caroline Helwick
Value-Based Care in Myeloma published on February 26, 2015 in Multiple Myeloma
Last modified: May 28, 2014
  • Rheumatology Practice Management
  • American Health & Drug Benefits
  • Value-Based Cancer Care
  • Value-Based Care in Myeloma
  • Value-Based Care in Neurology