Search

Venous thromboembolism is highly prevalent in lung cancer patients. Low molecular weight heparins are recommended for long term treatment of cancer associated venous thromboembolism. Direct oral anticoagulants are however an interesting alternative as they are administered orally and don't require monitoring. There are currently studies comparing both their efficacy and tolerance for cancer patients and more and more guidelines suggest considering direct oral anticoagulants for cancer associated venous thromboembolism treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the budgetary impact that direct oral anticoagulants use would have for lung cancer associated venous thromboembolism treatment and prevention in France. An economic model was made to evaluate the cost of venous thromboembolism treatment and prevention among patients with primary lung cancer in France by two strategies: current guidelines versus direct oral anticoagulants use. The model was fed with clinical and economic data extracted from the French national health information system. The analysis was conducted from the national mandatory Health insurance point of view. The time horizon of the study was the evaluation of the annual management cost. Lung cancer associated venous thromboembolism management's mean cost was estimated of 836€ per patient, that is a total cost of about 40 million euros per year at a national level. A 76% decrease of this cost can be expected with direct oral anticoagulants use. However, despite their benefits, these treatments raise new issues (medication interactions, bleeding management), and would likely not be recommended for all patients.

Andexanet-alpha is a specific reversal agent for direct factor Xa inhibitors (dFXaI). We aimed to project utilization rates and cost of andexanet for reversal of dFXaI-related major hemorrhage compared to 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates (4F-PCC). A retrospective, multicenter review was conducted between 1/1/2014 and 7/15/2018 of patients who received 4F-PCC for reversal of dFXaI-related life-threatening hemorrhages. Total hospital reimbursements/patient were calculated based on national average MS-DRG payments adjusting for Medicare discounts. The projected cost for andexanet (based on dose and insurance) and % reimbursement/patient was compared to the actual cost of 4F-PCC. Hemostasis at 24 h (excellent/good vs. poor) and 30-day thrombotic complications were assessed. Of 126 patients who received 4F-PCC to reverse dFXaI, 46 (~ 10 per-year) met inclusion criteria. The median projected cost of andexanet was $22,120/patient, compared to $5670/patient for 4F-PCC (P < 0.001). The median hospital reimbursement was $11,492/hospitalization. The projected cost of andexanet alone would exceed the entire hospital reimbursement in 74% of patients by a median of $7604, while 4F-PCC cost exceeded the total hospital payments in 7% of patients in the same cohort (P < 0.001). Hemostasis was excellent/good in 72% of patients post-4F-PCC, compared to 82% in andexanet trials. Thromboembolic events occurred in 4% of patients following 4F-PCC versus 10% in andexanet trials. The projected cost of andexanet would exceed the national average hospital reimbursement/patient in nearly 75% of patients by over $7500/hospitalization. 4F-PCC was significantly less expensive, had lower rates of thrombosis, but also lower rates of good/excellent hemostasis compared to published data for andexanet.

Warfarin remains the most commonly prescribed oral anticoagulant in the United States, but it has disadvantages such as dietary interactions and frequent laboratory monitoring. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been introduced as safer and equally effective alternatives to warfarin. This study assessed patient preference for warfarin or DOAC based on a willingness to pay more for potential DOAC benefits. Current warfarin patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism enrolled in the University of Utah Health Thrombosis Service were given a one-time electronic survey that assessed preferences between warfarin and DOACs using scenarios comparing effectiveness, safety, and convenience. When DOACs were preferred, patients were asked how much more they would be willing to pay monthly for the perceived advantages associated with DOACs. With 123 completed surveys, 68% of patients preferred to stay on warfarin. No particular factor influenced patient preference (lack of routine laboratory monitoring, lower risks of major bleeding, and fewer dietary interactions). Reduced stroke risk was associated with the highest value (willing to pay an additional $21). Considering all factors, patients preferring DOACs would pay a median $18 extra per month for the additional benefits. Prior exposure to DOACs was associated with preference for DOACs. Many patients currently taking warfarin preferred to stay on warfarin when given the choice, despite DOAC benefits. Willingness to pay extra for DOAC advantages did not exceed $20 in the majority of survey respondents. Previous DOAC exposure influences patient preference and perceived value for DOACs.

Target specific anticoagulants (TSOACs) have recently been introduced to the US market for multiple indications including venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in total hip and knee replacement surgeries, VTE treatment and reduction in the risk of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Currently, three TSOACs are available including rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran with edoxaban currently under Food and Drug Administration review for VTE treatment and stroke prevention in NVAF. The introduction of these agents has created a paradigm shift in anticoagulation by considerably simplifying treatment and anticoagulant initiation for patients by giving clinicians the opportunity to use a rapid onset, rapid offset, oral agent. The availability of these rapid onset TSOACs is allowing for outpatient treatment of low risk pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis which can greatly reduce healthcare costs by avoiding inpatient hospitalizations and treatment for the disease. Additionally with this practice, the complications of an inpatient hospitalization may also be avoided such as nosocomial infections. Single-agent approaches with TSOACs represent a paradigm shift in the treatment of VTE versus the complicated overlap of a parenteral agent with warfarin. Transitions between anticoagulants, including TSOACs, are a high-risk period for the patient, and clinicians must carefully consider patient characteristics such as renal function as well as the agents that are being transitioned. TSOAC use appears to be growing slowly with improved payment coverage throughout the US.