0
selected
-
1.
Rivaroxaban compared with standard anticoagulants for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in children: a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.
Male, C, Lensing, AWA, Palumbo, JS, Kumar, R, Nurmeev, I, Hege, K, Bonnet, D, Connor, P, Hooimeijer, HL, Torres, M, et al
The Lancet. Haematology. 2020;(1):e18-e27
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Treatment of venous thromboembolism in children is based on data obtained in adults with little direct documentation of its efficacy and safety in children. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus standard anticoagulants in children with venous thromboembolism. METHODS In a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised study, children (aged 0-17 years) attending 107 paediatric hospitals in 28 countries with documented acute venous thromboembolism who had started heparinisation were assigned (2:1) to bodyweight-adjusted rivaroxaban (tablets or suspension) in a 20-mg equivalent dose or standard anticoagulants (heparin or switched to vitamin K antagonist). Randomisation was stratified by age and venous thromboembolism site. The main treatment period was 3 months (1 month in children <2 years of age with catheter-related venous thromboembolism). The primary efficacy outcome, symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism (assessed by intention-to-treat), and the principal safety outcome, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (assessed in participants who received ≥1 dose), were centrally assessed by investigators who were unaware of treatment assignment. Repeat imaging was obtained at the end of the main treatment period and compared with baseline imaging tests. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02234843 and has been completed. FINDINGS From Nov 14, 2014, to Sept 28, 2018, 500 (96%) of the 520 children screened for eligibility were enrolled. After a median follow-up of 91 days (IQR 87-95) in children who had a study treatment period of 3 months (n=463) and 31 days (IQR 29-35) in children who had a study treatment period of 1 month (n=37), symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in four (1%) of 335 children receiving rivaroxaban and five (3%) of 165 receiving standard anticoagulants (hazard ratio [HR] 0·40, 95% CI 0·11-1·41). Repeat imaging showed an improved effect of rivaroxaban on thrombotic burden as compared with standard anticoagulants (p=0·012). Major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding in participants who received ≥1 dose occurred in ten (3%) of 329 children (all non-major) receiving rivaroxaban and in three (2%) of 162 children (two major and one non-major) receiving standard anticoagulants (HR 1·58, 95% CI 0·51-6·27). Absolute and relative efficacy and safety estimates of rivaroxaban versus standard anticoagulation estimates were similar to those in rivaroxaban studies in adults. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION In children with acute venous thromboembolism, treatment with rivaroxaban resulted in a similarly low recurrence risk and reduced thrombotic burden without increased bleeding, as compared with standard anticoagulants. FUNDING Bayer AG and Janssen Research & Development.
-
2.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of rivaroxaban for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in the Netherlands.
Heisen, M, Treur, MJ, Heemstra, HE, Giesen, EBW, Postma, MJ
Journal of medical economics. 2017;(8):813-824
Abstract
BACKGROUND Until recently, standard treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) concerned a combination of short-term low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and long-term vitamin-K antagonist (VKA). Risk of bleeding and the requirement for regular anticoagulation monitoring are, however, limiting their use. Rivaroxaban is a novel oral anticoagulant associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeds (hazard ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval = 0.37-0.79) compared to LMWH/VKA therapy, and does not require regular anticoagulation monitoring. AIMS To evaluate the health economic consequences of treating acute VTE patients with rivaroxaban compared to treatment with LMWH/VKA, viewed from the Dutch societal perspective. METHODS A life-time Markov model was populated with the findings of the EINSTEIN phase III clinical trial to analyze cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban therapy in treatment and prevention of VTE from a Dutch societal perspective. Primary model outcomes were total and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as life expectancy and costs. RESULTS Over a patient's lifetime, rivaroxaban was shown to be dominant, with health gains of 0.047 QALYs and cost savings of €304 compared to LMWH/VKA therapy. Dominance was robustly present in all sensitivity analyses. Major drivers of the differences between the two treatment arms were related to anticoagulation monitoring (medical costs, travel costs, and loss of productivity) and the occurrence of major bleeds. CONCLUSION Rivaroxaban treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism results in health gains and cost savings compared to LMWH/VKA therapy. This conclusion holds for the Dutch setting, both for the societal perspective, as well as the healthcare perspective.
-
3.
Economic Analysis Comparing Dalteparin to Vitamin K Antagonists to Prevent Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer Having Renal Impairment.
Dranitsaris, G, Shane, L, Burgers, L, Woodruff, S
Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. 2016;(7):617-26
Abstract
BACKGROUND In a randomized trial (ie, Comparison of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin versus Oral Anticoagulant Therapy for the Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Cancer [CLOT]) that evaluated secondary prophylaxis of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer, dalteparin reduced the relative risk by 52% compared to oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; hazard ratio = 0.48, P = .002). A recent subgroup analysis in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment also revealed lower absolute VTE rates with dalteparin (3% vs 17%; P = .011). To measure the economic value of dalteparin in these populations, a pharmacoeconomic analysis was conducted from the Dutch health-care system perspective. METHODS Resource utilization data contained within the CLOT trial database were extracted and converted into direct cost estimates. Univariate analysis was then conducted to compare the total cost of therapy between patients randomized to dalteparin or VKA therapy. Health state utilities were then measured in 24 members of the general public using the time trade-off technique. RESULTS When all of the cost components were combined for the entire population (n = 676), the dalteparin group had significantly higher overall costs than the VKA control group (dalteparin = €2375 vs VKA = €1724; P < .001). However, dalteparin was associated with a gain of 0.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10-0.18) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over VKA. When the incremental cost was combined with the utility gain, dalteparin had a cost of €4,697 (95% CI: €3824-€4951) per QALY gained. CONCLUSION Secondary prophylaxis with dalteparin is a cost-effective alternative to VKA for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients with cancer.
-
4.
Indirect comparison and cost-utility of dabigatran etexilate and rivaroxaban in the treatment and extended anticoagulation of venous thromboembolism in a UK setting.
Jugrin, AV, Hösel, V, Ustyugova, A, De Francesco, M, Lamotte, M, Sunderland, T
Journal of medical economics. 2016;(1):1-10
Abstract
BACKGROUND Acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is traditionally managed with a short course of parenteral anticoagulation followed by 3-6 months of a vitamin-K antagonist. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) do not require routine monitoring and dose adjustment, thus potentially provide an alternative treatment option. METHODS AND RESULTS Because of the lack of head-to-head clinical studies, an indirect comparison was conducted of dabigatran etexilate and rivaroxaban based on the respective phase III clinical trial. The derived relative safety and efficacy estimates were used to evaluate the cost-utility of dabigatran compared with rivaroxaban in the treatment and secondary prevention of VTE. The results of the indirect comparison showed no significant difference between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in avoiding recurrent VTE following index PE, index DVT, or DVT/PE combined, in treatment and extended anticoagulation. Dabigatran has significantly less major or clinically relevant bleeds (MCRBE) compared to rivaroxaban in treatment after index DVT and treatment after DVT or PE combined, but was not significantly different from rivaroxaban after index PE or in extended anticoagulation. In cost-utility deterministic analyses, dabigatran was projected dominant in all analyzed settings, given its marginally lower total cost and marginally higher QALYs gained compared to rivaroxaban. Probabilistic analyses results showed a high likelihood of dabigatran being considered good value for money in the UK, in treatment and in secondary prevention of VTE. CONCLUSION The cost-effectiveness evaluations showed that dabigatran can be considered the dominant treatment strategy compared to rivaroxaban in the patients' sub-groups considered, given the projected marginally higher clinical benefits and lower treatment costs.
-
5.
Use of prestudy heparin did not influence the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients treated for symptomatic venous thromboem-bolism in the EINSTEIN DVT and EINSTEIN PE studies.
Prandoni, P, Prins, MH, Cohen, AT, Müller, K, Pap, ÁF, Tewes, MC, Lensing, AW
Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. 2015;(2):142-9
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVES In the EINSTEIN DVT and EINSTEIN PE studies, the majority of patients received heparins to bridge the period during venous thromboembolism (VTE) diagnosis confirmation and the start of the study. In contrast to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), rivaroxaban may not require initial heparin treatment. METHODS To evaluate the effect of prestudy heparin on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban relative to enoxaparin/VKA, the 3-month incidence of recurrent VTE, and the 14-day incidence of major and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding were compared in patients who did and did not receive prestudy heparin. RESULTS Of the 8,281 patients randomized, 6,937 (83.8%) received prestudy heparin (mean ± SD duration = rivaroxaban: 1.04 [± 0.74] days; enoxaparin 1.03 [± 0.42] days), and 1,344 (16.2%) did not. In patients who did not receive prestudy heparin, the incidences of recurrent VTE were similar in rivaroxaban (15 of 649, 2.3%) and enoxaparin/VKA (13 of 695, 1.9%) patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.52 to 2.37). The incidences of recurrent VTE were also similar in rivaroxaban (54 of 3,501, 1.5%) and enoxaparin/VKA (69 of 3,436, 2.0%) patients who did receive prestudy heparin (adjusted HR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.52 to 1.06; pinteraction = 0.32). The incidences of major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding with rivaroxaban were not significantly different from those with enoxaparin/VKA, either with (105 of 3,485, 3.0% vs. 104 of 3,428, 3.0%; adjusted HR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.29) or without (24 of 645, 3.7% vs. 30 of 688, 4.4%; adjusted HR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.46 to 1.40; pinteraction = 0.68) prestudy heparin. CONCLUSIONS Although the majority of patients in the EINSTEIN studies received prestudy heparin, there were no notable differences in treatment effect of rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin/VKA in those who did and did not receive it.
-
6.
Efficacy and safety of edoxaban for treatment of venous thromboembolism: a subanalysis of East Asian patients in the Hokusai-VTE trial.
Nakamura, M, Wang, YQ, Wang, C, Oh, D, Yin, WH, Kimura, T, Miyazaki, K, Abe, K, Mercuri, M, Lee, LH, et al
Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH. 2015;(9):1606-14
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Direct oral anticoagulants have been evaluated for their efficacy and safety in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which comprises deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The randomized, double-blind Hokusai-VTE trial demonstrated that 60 mg of edoxaban once daily following initial heparin treatment is non-inferior to heparin overlapped with and followed by warfarin for the treatment of VTE, and is associated with significantly fewer bleeding events. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin among East Asian patients enrolled in the Hokusai-VTE trial. PATIENTS/METHODS The Hokusai-VTE trial enrolled 8292 patients from 439 centers worldwide, including 1109 patients from Japan, China, Korea, and Taiwan. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were symptomatic recurrent VTE and clinically relevant bleeding, respectively. RESULTS In the overall East Asian population, the primary efficacy outcome of symptomatic recurrent VTE occurred in 16 of 563 (2.8%) patients in the edoxaban group versus 24 of 538 (4.5%) patients in the warfarin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-1.19; P = 0.1601). The primary safety outcome of clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 56 of 563 (9.9%) patients in the edoxaban group versus 93 of 538 (17.3%) patients in the warfarin group (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40-0.78; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Edoxaban is an effective and safer alternative to warfarin in East Asian patients with acute VTE who require anticoagulant therapy, consistent with overall study findings from the Hokusai-VTE trial.