Regular ArticleCost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin anticoagulation for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism: A U.S. perspective

IntroductionRivaroxaban is an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor that is noninferior to warfarin in the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether rivaroxaban is cost-effective in the prevention of recurrent VTE, however, is not known.Material and MethodsTo assess the cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the prevention of recurrent VTE, we built a Markov state-transition model over a 10-year time horizon. The base case analysis consisted of a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old patients with an initial VTE who received secondary prophylaxis with either rivaroxaban or warfarin for 3 to 12 months. Cost estimates were derived from the Healthcare and Utilization Project and other sources. Probabilities were based on literature values. Outcomes included costs in 2011 United States dollars, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over 10 years from a societal perspective.ResultsCompared with warfarin, the rivaroxaban strategy cost less ($3,195 vs. $6,188) and was more effective (9.29 QALYs vs 9.14 QALYs). Our results were highly robust in sensitivity analyses. Warfarin was no longer dominated by rivaroxaban when the risk of major bleeding with rivaroxaban exceeds 3.8% (base case estimate: 0.96%).ConclusionIn summary, prophylactic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban appears to be a cost effective, and perhaps cost saving, alternative to warfarin for the prevention of recurrent VTE.