Laliberté François, Cloutier Michel, Crivera Concetta, Nelson Winnie W, Olson William H, Schein Jeffrey, Vanderpoel Julie, Germain Guillaume, Lefebvre Patrick
Groupe d'analyse, Ltée, 1000 De La Gauchetière Ouest, Bureau 1200, Montréal, QC, H3B 4W5, Canada,
Adv Ther. 2015 Mar;32(3):216-27. doi: 10.1007/s12325-015-0189-1. Epub 2015 Mar 18.
New target-specific oral anticoagulants may have benefits, such as shorter hospital length of stay, compared to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study aimed to assess, among patients with NVAF, the effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on health care costs in a cohort of rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users.
Health care claims from the Humana database from 5/2011 to 12/2012 were analyzed. Adult patients newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥2 atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnoses (The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification: 427.31) and without valvular AF were identified. Based on propensity score methods, warfarin patients were matched 1:1 to rivaroxaban patients. Patients were observed up to end of data, end of insurance coverage, death, a switch to another anticoagulant, or treatment nonpersistence. Health care costs [hospitalization, emergency room (ER), outpatient, and pharmacy costs] were evaluated using Lin's method.
Matches were found for all rivaroxaban patients, and characteristics of the matched groups (n = 2253 per group) were well balanced. Estimated mean all-cause and AF-related hospitalization costs were significantly lower for rivaroxaban versus warfarin patients (all-cause: $5411 vs. $7427, P = 0.047; AF-related: $2872 vs. $4147, P = 0.020). Corresponding estimated mean all-cause outpatient visit costs were also significantly lower, but estimated mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher for rivaroxaban patients ($5316 vs. $2620, P < 0.001). Although estimated mean costs of ER visits were higher for rivaroxaban users compared to those of warfarin users, differences were not statistically significant. Including anticoagulant costs, mean overall total all-cause costs were comparable for rivaroxaban versus warfarin users due to cost offset from a reduction in the number and length of hospitalizations and number of outpatient visits ($17,590 vs. $18,676, P = 0.542).
Despite higher anticoagulant cost, mean overall total all-cause and AF-related cost remains comparable for patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin due to the cost offset from reduced health care resource utilization.
与华法林相比,新型靶向口服抗凝剂可能具有一些益处,例如在非瓣膜性心房颤动(NVAF)患者中住院时间更短。本研究旨在评估在NVAF患者中,利伐沙班与华法林对一组利伐沙班使用者和匹配的华法林使用者医疗费用的影响。
分析了来自Humana数据库2011年5月至2012年12月的医疗理赔数据。确定了新开始使用利伐沙班或华法林且有≥2次心房颤动(AF)诊断(国际疾病分类第九版临床修订本:427.31)且无瓣膜性AF的成年患者。基于倾向评分方法,将华法林患者与利伐沙班患者1:1匹配。对患者进行观察直至数据结束、保险覆盖结束、死亡、改用另一种抗凝剂或治疗中断。使用Lin方法评估医疗费用[住院、急诊室(ER)、门诊和药房费用]。
所有利伐沙班患者均找到匹配对象,匹配组(每组n = 2253)的特征均衡良好。利伐沙班患者的全因和AF相关住院费用估计均值显著低于华法林患者(全因:5411美元对7427美元,P = 0.047;AF相关:2872美元对4147美元,P = 0.020)。相应的全因门诊就诊费用估计均值也显著更低,但利伐沙班患者的药房费用估计均值显著更高(5316美元对2620美元,P < 0.001)。尽管利伐沙班使用者的ER就诊费用估计均值高于华法林使用者,但差异无统计学意义。包括抗凝剂费用在内,由于住院次数和住院时间以及门诊就诊次数减少带来的费用抵消,利伐沙班使用者与华法林使用者的全因总费用均值相当(17,590美元对18,676美元,P = 0.542)。
尽管抗凝剂成本更高,但由于医疗资源利用减少带来的费用抵消,对于接受利伐沙班与华法林治疗的NVAF患者,全因总费用均值和AF相关费用均值仍相当。