Health economic evaluation of rivaroxaban in the treatment of patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease

AIMS: In the COMPASS trial, rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (bid) plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 100 mg once daily (od) performed better than ASA 100 mg od alone in reducing the rate of cardiovascular disease, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban plus ASA vs. ASA alone over a lifetime horizon, from the UK National Health System perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: The base case analysis assumed that patients entered the model in the event-free health state, with the possibility to experience ≤2 events, transitioning every three-month cycle, through acute and post-acute health states of MI, ischaemic stroke (IS), or intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), and death. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life years-all discounted at 3.5%-and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, as well as scenario analyses. In the model, patients on rivaroxaban plus ASA lived for an average of 14.0 years with no IS/MI/ICH, and gained 9.7 QALYs at a cost of £13 947, while those receiving ASA alone lived for an average of 12.7 years and gained 9.3 QALYs at a cost of £8126. The ICER was £16 360 per QALY. This treatment was cost-effective in 98% of 5000 iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: This Markov model suggests that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bid plus ASA is a cost-effective alternative to ASA alone in patients with chronic CAD or PAD

Temporal trends in the incidence, treatment patterns, and outcomes of coronary artery disease and peripheral artery disease in the UK, 2006–2015

Aims Most reports estimating national incidence rates of coronary (CAD) and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) have focused on stable outpatients or acute or elective hospital admissions, but not on the overall burden of disease. In this study, we report the changing trends in the population-level incidence of CAD and PAD, respectively from 2006 to 2015, statin utilization for secondary prevention and survival outcomes using multiple nationally representative data sources from the UK (primary care encounters, hospital admissions, and procedure-level data). Methods and results A nationally representative study of linked primary and secondary care electronic health records of 4.6 million individuals from the UK. We calculated crude and standardized annual incidence rates separately for CAD and PAD. Statin use for secondary prevention, trends in annual major vascular event rates, and mortality between 2006 and 2015, were estimated for CAD and PAD, respectively. We identified 160 376 and 70 753 patients with incident CAD and PAD, respectively. The age- and sex-standardized incidence of CAD was similar in 2006 (443 per 100 000 person-years) and 2015 [436 per 100 000 person-years; adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96–1.00]. In contrast, there was a 15% decline in the standardized incidence of PAD (236 per 100 000 person-years in 2006 to 202 per 100 000 person-years in 2015; adjusted IRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.82–0.88). The proportion of incident CAD and PAD patients prescribed long-term statins, was only 66% and 55%, respectively and was less common amongst women, patients aged >70 years, with heart failure, chronic lung disease, or depression. Cardiovascular mortality declined by 43% for incident CAD (adjusted IRR 0.57, 95% CI 0.50–0.64) between 2006 and 2015 but did not decline for incident PAD (adjusted IRR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70–1.00). Conclusion and relevance In the UK, the standardized incidence of CAD appears stable but mortality rates are falling, whereas the standardized incidence of PAD is falling but mortality rates are not

The Impact of Error-Management Climate, Error Type and Error Originator on Auditors’ Reporting Errors Discovered on Audit Work Papers

We examine factors affecting the auditor’s willingness to report their own or their peers’ self-discovered errors in working papers subsequent to detailed working paper review. Prior research has shown that errors in working papers are detected in the review process; however, such detection rates only rarely exceed 50% of the seeded errors. Hence, measures that encourage auditors to be alert to their own (or their peers’) potential errors any time they revisit the audit working papers may be valuable in detecting such residual errors and potentially correcting them before damage occurs to the audit firm or its client. We hypothesize that three factors affect the auditor’s willingness to report post detailed review discovered errors: the local office error-management climate (open versus blame), the type of error (mechanical versus conceptual) and who committed the error (the individual who committed the error (self) or a peer). Local office error-management climate is said to be open and supportive where errors and mistakes are accepted as part of everyday life as long as they are learned from and not repeated. In alternative, a blame error-management climate focuses on a “get it right the first time” culture where mistakes are not tolerated and blame gets attached to those admitting to or found committing such errors. We find that error-management climate has a significant overall effect on auditor willingness to report errors, as does who committed the error originally. We find both predicted and unpredicted significant interactions among the three factors that qualify these observed significant main effects. We discuss implications for audit practice and further research